3 ms·

> By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If they're on each person's

> By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If they're on each person's private property then they're on every street corner and so on. The distinction you're really after is between decentralized and centralized control/access, which is rather the point. > It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing. You're conflating the operators with the thing itself. LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data. The only question is, are they a thing that does what you want because there are good published models that anybody can run on their own hardware, or are the only up-to-date ones corporate and censored and politically compromised by every clodpoll who can stir up a mob?

throwaway290 11mo ago
You really try hard to misunderstand it. A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. In practice they can be both supplied by one company, centralized and unified and sold and fighting ANY cctv is ultimately the winning move. > LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data"
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  > A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. But that's the thing you were implying couldn't be distinguished. Every small shop having its own CCTV is different than one company having cameras everywhere, even if they both result cameras all over the place. > "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data" Which is accurate. Even if you tried to ban malware, or LLMs, they would still be produced by China et al. And malware is by definition bad, so you're also omitting the thing that matters again, which is that we should not ban the LLMs that aren't bad.
  - throwaway290 11mo ago
    like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most. > the LLMs that aren't bad which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry. If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.
      - throwaway290 11mo ago
        The laws already exist. If you side with corrupt judges disrespecting these laws and interpreting them in favor of big tech corps, it's your choice)
        CamperBob2 11mo ago
        I see; the laws aren't in question or in flux, but it's the judges who are wrong. Enlightening. I still don't understand how copyright maximalism has suddenly become so popular on a site called "Hacker News." But it's early here, and I'm sure I'm not done learning exciting new things today.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      > like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary. > which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code? Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?

throwaway290 11mo ago

You really try hard to misunderstand it. A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. In practice they can be both supplied by one company, centralized and unified and sold and fighting ANY cctv is ultimately the winning move. > LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data"

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
> A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. But that's the thing you were implying couldn't be distinguished. Every small shop having its own CCTV is different than one company having cameras everywhere, even if they both result cameras all over the place. > "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data" Which is accurate. Even if you tried to ban malware, or LLMs, they would still be produced by China et al. And malware is by definition bad, so you're also omitting the thing that matters again, which is that we should not ban the LLMs that aren't bad.
- throwaway290 11mo ago
  like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most. > the LLMs that aren't bad which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry. If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.
    - throwaway290 11mo ago
      The laws already exist. If you side with corrupt judges disrespecting these laws and interpreting them in favor of big tech corps, it's your choice)
      - CamperBob2 11mo ago
        I see; the laws aren't in question or in flux, but it's the judges who are wrong. Enlightening. I still don't understand how copyright maximalism has suddenly become so popular on a site called "Hacker News." But it's early here, and I'm sure I'm not done learning exciting new things today.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    > like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary. > which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code? Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?