5 ms·

How hard is it to understand "I want to share what Ive done, but I dont want predatory companies taking my work, profiting on it, and offering absolutely nothin

How hard is it to understand "I want to share what Ive done, but I dont want predatory companies taking my work, profiting on it, and offering absolutely nothing in return."

gasull 6mo ago
It will end up distilled into open-weights models.
- achierius 6mo ago
  Not if the big labs have anything to say about it! They're working to fix the 'problem', and with Mythos we no longer have any guarantees that the frontier will even be available to distill.
GaryBluto 6mo ago
Do you think that if you write a book directly inspired by another you should be required to pay the author of the book that inspired you?
- overfeed 6mo ago
  That's a false equivalence. Humans occasionally cause food poisoning at potlucks, and it's self-evident why we should hold McDonald's to a much higher standard due to the sheer scale of harm it can cause. A human, even when hopped up on stimulants, can't do a fraction of what a corporations with whole data centers can do.
  - GaryBluto 6mo ago
    It is in no way a false equivalence. Are you saying that if you write a book directly inspired by another you shouldn't be required to pay the author of the book that inspired you, unless you become successful, then you should be held to "higher standards"?
    - overfeed 6mo ago
      Biological humans are not, and should not be equivalent to corporations. There's a chasm in scale of execution, goals, and functional immortality. Further case law established that I - a human - can create original work, if you are a non-human entity such as an LLM, or a monkey taking a picture, you cannot.
      - GaryBluto 6mo ago
        Remind me again what beings operate corporations.
        mystraline 6mo ago
        A company is a ship of Theses. Someone can die, and theyre replaced within 3 days. A new hire takes their place within a month (or used to). And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". An analysis of 'what a company is', is fair to compare it to the most laser-focused sociopath. But your false point is trying to say 'Since humans run a company, its human ethics and just humans'. And what we have is demonstrably not human-like. The 2003 documentary film 'The Corporation' does a deep dive as why you are wrong, in regards to falsely equivocating humans to a corporation. The worst of the worst behaviors of sociopathic humans get selected more and more, all in the name of money. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q
        secabeen 6mo ago
        > And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". "the philosophy of putting shareholder profits over all else is a matter of ideology which is not grounded in American law or tradition" https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ This remains a matter of active debate, and there is no law that requires or enshrines it. It's a legitimate opinion to hold, that a company should maximize shareholder returns, but it is not in any way a requirement to do so. Here's a recent study on the matter: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weakening-shareholder-primacy-evidence-from-a-u-s-quasi-natural-experiment/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weak... Note that if shareholder primacy were the law of the land, this study could never have even occurred.
- AlecSchueler 6mo ago
  Are these hypothetical books being written by "predatory companies?"

How hard is it to understand "I want to share what Ive done, but I dont want predatory companies taking my work, profiting on it, and offering absolutely nothing in return."

gasull 6mo ago

It will end up distilled into open-weights models.

achierius 6mo ago
Not if the big labs have anything to say about it! They're working to fix the 'problem', and with Mythos we no longer have any guarantees that the frontier will even be available to distill.

GaryBluto 6mo ago

Do you think that if you write a book directly inspired by another you should be required to pay the author of the book that inspired you?

overfeed 6mo ago
That's a false equivalence. Humans occasionally cause food poisoning at potlucks, and it's self-evident why we should hold McDonald's to a much higher standard due to the sheer scale of harm it can cause. A human, even when hopped up on stimulants, can't do a fraction of what a corporations with whole data centers can do.
- GaryBluto 6mo ago
  It is in no way a false equivalence. Are you saying that if you write a book directly inspired by another you shouldn't be required to pay the author of the book that inspired you, unless you become successful, then you should be held to "higher standards"?
  - overfeed 6mo ago
    Biological humans are not, and should not be equivalent to corporations. There's a chasm in scale of execution, goals, and functional immortality. Further case law established that I - a human - can create original work, if you are a non-human entity such as an LLM, or a monkey taking a picture, you cannot.
    - GaryBluto 6mo ago
      Remind me again what beings operate corporations.
      - mystraline 6mo ago
        A company is a ship of Theses. Someone can die, and theyre replaced within 3 days. A new hire takes their place within a month (or used to). And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". An analysis of 'what a company is', is fair to compare it to the most laser-focused sociopath. But your false point is trying to say 'Since humans run a company, its human ethics and just humans'. And what we have is demonstrably not human-like. The 2003 documentary film 'The Corporation' does a deep dive as why you are wrong, in regards to falsely equivocating humans to a corporation. The worst of the worst behaviors of sociopathic humans get selected more and more, all in the name of money. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6v8e7dUwq_Q
        secabeen 6mo ago
        > And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders". "the philosophy of putting shareholder profits over all else is a matter of ideology which is not grounded in American law or tradition" https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_shareholder_fallacy/ This remains a matter of active debate, and there is no law that requires or enshrines it. It's a legitimate opinion to hold, that a company should maximize shareholder returns, but it is not in any way a requirement to do so. Here's a recent study on the matter: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weakening-shareholder-primacy-evidence-from-a-u-s-quasi-natural-experiment/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/06/12/the-costs-of-weak... Note that if shareholder primacy were the law of the land, this study could never have even occurred.
AlecSchueler 6mo ago
Are these hypothetical books being written by "predatory companies?"