4 ms·
...and then the American companies cried Foul! Unfair play! You've got this wrong, see, it was us who were supposed to profit off of the public, not the other w
by 9dev 2mo ago
...and then the American companies cried Foul! Unfair play! You've got this wrong, see, it was us who were supposed to profit off of the public, not the other way around!
- cansofgrease 2mo agoWell, Steve... I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.
- drstewart 2mo agoWow, Chinese companies would never do such a thing! https://www.dw.com/en/china-firm-seeks-damages-over-state-control-of-british-steel/a-78024119 https://www.dw.com/en/china-firm-seeks-damages-over-state-co...
- somelamer567 2mo agoTwo wrongs don't make a right. Even if a certain large Asian country has carefully constructed a pretext to do do out of confected historical grievance, and entitlement to 'rise' at the expense of others?
- 9dev 2mo agoThey sure don't. I still find the hypocrisy appalling.
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoMaybe I'm dense, but I don't understand what you are saying. American courts have decided that the output of LLMs can't be copyrighted, so what the Chinese labs are doing is perfectly legal.
- snackbroken 2mo agoFirst, copying information isn't wrong to begin with. It is literally the one thing that makes our species special. Second, even if you are a copyright maximalist the output of an LLM is either a) not subject to copyright because it is not the creative work of a human or b) a derivative work of the original training material to which the LLM's operator has no rights. Since the LLM's operator forcefully asserts that it is not infringing, any wrong that arises from taking their word for it and distilling one model into another rests squarely with the operator of the former.
- Paradigma11 2mo agoDo you have any actual rulings that support your interpretation?