4 ms·
Their idea is being able to get answers to questions which were difficult to answer before[0]. Of course they want to get paid for it. The information wasn’t av
by baq 6mo ago
Their idea is being able to get answers to questions which were difficult to answer before[0]. Of course they want to get paid for it. The information wasn’t available easily and not always[1] freely.
[0] among other things…
[1] more like ‘often not at all’
- entrox 6mo ago> Of course they want to get paid for it. So should the original authors, no? That is, getting a share of that payment. Something akin to the German GEMA could work, an entity that levies a usage fee on behalf of all copyright holders and re-distributes to its members, but on a global scale.
- inetknght 6mo ago> So should the original authors, no? That is, getting a share of that payment. Should they? Yes. Will they? Well, do LLM model builders pay for any copyrighted work so far?
- entrox 6mo agoWell, not yet. It's a matter of organization, regulation and litigation. I was thinking along the lines of concepts that already exist, such as the private copying levy [0]. It basically forces a blanket tax on a certain class of products, which then gets redistributed to members of a collecting society such as GEMA [1]. This way, you would force LLM model builders to effectively pay a tax by law. Since these models do not work at all without underlying content, make it proportionate. Let's say 50-70% to make it fair. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization)