3 ms·
There is no reason we should accept the enclosure of the digital commons represented by AI. The data these models are trained on amounts to the total intellectu
by mbgerring 4mo ago
There is no reason we should accept the enclosure of the digital commons represented by AI. The data these models are trained on amounts to the total intellectual and artistic output of human kind through recorded history. It belongs to all of us, and accordingly, so should the models and weights produced by it.
- logancbrown 4mo agoThe effort of humans who had to toil through training models belongs to everyone? Do they no longer have any ownership over their hard work?
- petcat 4mo agoNot too mention the unbelievable cost of actually doing all that training.
- SoftTalker 4mo agoPeople used to make the similar arguments about programming languages and compilers. Now you'd need extaordinary requirements to justify paying licensing or usage fees for a language runtime or compiler.
- riddlemethat 4mo agoThey got paid. That’s what the money was for. It’s the investors who backed these foundational model companies who will hold the bag as more open source models come along and consume more market share.
- thewebguyd 4mo agoI agree, but > the investors who backed these foundational model companies who will hold the bag Is awfully bold to assume that private credit is who will be holding the bag here. The IPOs are coming to shift the risk to the index funds & retail. Once insider lock up periods expire, I suspect a massive sell off.
- tencentshill 4mo agoSome consider copyright to be unethical. "Information wants to be free".
- RRWagner 4mo agoI would propose that copyrights not be eternal
- thewebguyd 4mo agoInformation also wants to be expensive, and that tension will never go away. "Information wants to be free" is only one side of the context of that quote. > On the one hand you have—the point you’re making Woz—is that information sort of wants to be expensive because it is so valuable—the right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information almost wants to be free because the costs of getting it out is getting lower and lower all of the time. So you have these two things fighting against each other. Information may want to be free, but the humans creating it still need to eat and pay rent. Copyright isn't necessarily unethical more than its a flawed tool, and lasts far too long in the law's current state. It needs to last only and exactly as long for the original creator to profit from the work for a specific duration of time, and then thats it.
- vitally3643 4mo agoNo, greedy people want information to be expensive. It is only because of rampant greed and capitalism that information is not free. There is nothing inherent about the collective knowledge of mankind that lends itself to being proprietary and expensive. Otherwise human society literally could not have evolved.
- civet_java 4mo agoI think the issue is that information was expensive until the owners of capital gatekept knowledge itself. Now that information is cheap to reproduce they'd rather gatekeep the conduit to that knowledge and devalue knowledge itself rather than pay up in accordance with the very precedent that they set all along.
- cgannett 4mo agoA drop in the bucket compared to the value of the collective human work that was stolen to train it. edit: come to think about it I think the ratio of one drop to one bucket is vastly over estimating the ratio of the trainer's effort.
- logancbrown 4mo agoNo human work was stolen, it was read.
- folkrav 4mo agoCalling what LLMs do just "reading" is, at best, naïve anthropomorphization.
- logancbrown 4mo agoanthropomorphization is not a counterargument
- Upvoter33 4mo agoCome on. It reads all the code in the world; then, you ask it to produce code; then, it gladly writes out something "new" which is a synthesis of what is out there, often with direct copying. It's more than reading.
- logancbrown 4mo agoSounds like exactly what I do
- civet_java 4mo agoSo what? You're a human (I'm assuming you are) and an LLM is not. The law ought to treat humans differently.
- jazzyjackson 4mo ago
- dofm 4mo agoPaying them may now be impossible. There might be some legal settlements still. Preventing a handful of massive companies from continuing to be the only ones able to make money off that, not only unimpeded but with overt or covert state assistance (regulatory capture, ownership, whatever), at least puts an end to the worst of the abuse. If we have broken the idea of copyright, and we do indeed appear to have broken the idea of copyright, why should trillion dollar companies owned and controlled by strange or psychopathic weirdos and their circle of investors be the only ones benefiting? Why do Sam and Dario or the US government get to decide when and for whom the tap is turned on?
- failbuffer 4mo agoAre the going to pay for the societal harms they cause?
- cyanydeez 4mo agook, but government is how you do that. and as should be evident, its easy to year down and corrupt
- hootz 4mo agoCompanies aren't really that better. Actually, sometimes it's even worse, because they are not even formally required to serve the public.
- Chu4eeno 4mo agoA big reason for that is the dumb decision from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., giving us this quasi-capitalism which optimizes for the wrong thing.
- anigbrowl 4mo agoLEgislation could make that obsolete but it seems like most/all of our legislative institutions are captured by business interests.
- Chu4eeno 4mo agoYeah, it's hard to get someone to understand a problem when their salary (or campaign contributions) depends on them not understanding it, or however the quote goes.
- nxm 4mo agoIt belongs to not us, but the copyright holders of that work
- dwa3592 4mo agoand that is millions of people; hence the use of the word 'us'.
- stackedinserter 4mo agoIt's closer to "that output belongs to everyone, everyone's free to train your own model" Otherwise, everything you do belongs to all of us, because you learned on total intellectual and artistic output of human kind too.
- jazzyjackson 4mo agoNo I did not illegally download every book ever published. anyone who went to college paid good money for their textbooks.
- stackedinserter 4mo agoSo if I somehow read a book for free, then somehow used that knowledge in my paid work, then I owe them % of my earnings?