4 ms·
...and the rest of the training data (ie. the entire corpus of copyrighted works) was not written by experts expecting compensation? Double standards.
by jaen 3mo ago
...and the rest of the training data (ie. the entire corpus of copyrighted works) was not written by experts expecting compensation? Double standards.
- rafram 3mo agoI didn't say that.
- jaen 3mo agoIndeed, that's exactly why I replied - you omitted one side from the discussion.
- thom 3mo agoNo, you just parroted an increasingly popular talking point, the entire purpose of which seems to be to absolve AI companies of the enormous theft that put them in the position to hire experts in the first place.
- rafram 3mo agoWell, I'd never heard anyone make it before, but sure. (I looked into Mercor a bit and know some people who've worked in data generation/labeling, which is what exposed me to that side of the operation.) It doesn't absolve them of any theft, but it does make the assertion that they should be required to release their models to the public seem, to me, a bit farcical. There are dozens of free and open-weights models that have all trained on exactly the same web crawls and books as GPT-5 and Opus. The proprietary models are better because of proprietary data.
- thom 3mo agoI agree that saying that they have now trained on lots of proprietary data allows them to muddy the legislative waters further than they already have. What a happy coincidence!
- noitemtoshow 3mo agoI’d suggest you to learn more about how LLM training work. Training on internet data alone will not result in an agent answering your questions.
- thom 3mo agoSure as shit won't answer them without that though.
- franga2000 3mo agoCool, then they can train their proprietary models on their proprietary data only. Even if the other models were trained on the same data, which is unlikely, since they had less time and money to scrape it and fewer lawyers to be able to do something like pirate, the proprietary models are still largely built on the public data and wouldn't exist without it. At the very least, they should release the intermediate model, before training on their proprietary data. Not that that's how that works...
- mbesto 3mo ago> The proprietary models are better because of proprietary data Source? Otherwise this is pure speculation.
- Ajedi32 3mo agoNo, public data is not generally written by "experts expecting compensation". By the way, I don't expect you to pay me for this comment. You can just read it for free. You're welcome.
- pastel8739 3mo agoBooks?
- Ajedi32 3mo agoThe vast, vast, majority of AI training data is not books. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more text on HN alone than every book in the history of mankind (most of which are also no longer copyrighted).
- calgoo 3mo agoNo, but people do upload data with an expectation that the data not being used without their permission (unless they do a BSD/MIT/Public domain like license). Otherwise, the platform AND/OR the user do expect the data NOT to be used for purposes other then what it was intended for. Your comment is still your comment, and the hacker news platform also has a say in this. If there had been an opt-in, then fine no problem, but there was none, they just trained on everything available, including downloading pirated books from the internet.
- Ajedi32 3mo agoI think it's unreasonable to post anything on a public forum and then expect to be able to control who reads it and for what purpose.
- calgoo 3mo agoAnswering here as it wont let me reply: Just because you feel that something that is public, does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. You can't just copy an article from a news site and paste it on yours, that theft. If you dont agree, fine, but that is the law, and ALL the mega corps have been fighting to keep it this way for the last 20 years. If they want to steal everyones info, fine, then lobby to change the copyright laws and no problem.