5 ms·

No, and we collectively had this decades ago already. “Stealing” instead of “infringement” is originally MAFIAA language intentionally (ab)used to encourage emo

No, and we collectively had this decades ago already. “Stealing” instead of “infringement” is originally MAFIAA language intentionally (ab)used to encourage emotional reaction despite original owner not losing their copy. If you broke into a data center, pulled a hard drive and drive off with it - that’s stealing. If you accessed a copy of some information - that’s infringement, unauthorized access, or some other violation. But that’s not “stealing”, which fundamentally requires a loss or otherwise depriving original owner of the property that was stolen.

nonethewiser 2mo ago
One problem. He said stealing in general is a made up term. Do you think stealing is real?
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  "Stealing" of non-rivalrous goods? I don't "think" it's not real. I know.
  - nonethewiser 2mo ago
    Reread what he called a morally charged, made up term by future monopolists. Stealing. Not distilling, not stealing “non rivalrous goods.” Just stealing. Do you agree with what he actually said?
    - matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      Yes, "tokens, trained on the sum of human knowledge", are the most absolutely, unambiguously clear example of a non-rivalrous good I've ever seen. The current copyright status quo has them placed in the public domain. There is literally nothing wrong with "stealing" those tokens. They have exactly zero legal protection. "Stealing" those AI output tokens is so fundamentally impossible that it wouldn't be "stealing" in this case even if you subscribe to the copyright monopolist propaganda that copyright infringement is "stealing", and I most certainly do not. Hilariously, that means we don't even fall prey to things like DMCA anticircumvention laws. If they encrypt the reasoning traces and we break the encryption somehow, we've done nothing wrong since the data wasn't copyrighted in the first place!
      - blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
        There are bunch of legal protections. They may not fall under copyright, but depending, you could be looking at breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, CFAA, and also, if you buy them off someone else, now we’re into tortious interference.
      - nonethewiser 1mo ago
        You are in denial. He said the term “stealing.” Not this particular use case.
    - dnautics 2mo ago
      when you steal my bike you deprive me of my ability to use it. if i copy your notes, you still have access to them and may make use of them. unless somehow copying destroys the original, it is not stealing.
      - nonethewiser 1mo ago
        So you agree. Stealing a bike is a real harm and stealing isnt just some made up term meant to protect people with power and money.
    - UpsideDownRide 2mo ago
      Sticking to what was literally said and not meant by a person in a casual comment/conversation is certainly a strategy that can be used.
      - nonethewiser 1mo ago
        He said the term “stealing.” Its nonsencial to think he was referring to reverse engineering LLMs. Youd have a point if he referred to that practice and didn’t specifically identify the word stealing by itself. Funny how he doesn’t clarify that he was just talking about this specific use case. He could just agree with me that it’s sensationalist to assert that about stealing in general.
- drdaeman 2mo ago
  Read it in the context. The “made up” wasn’t a general statement. No one argues stealing doesn’t exist at all. My friend’s bike was stolen. What’s made up is application of this word to situations that are incompatible with what stealing is supposed to mean. Compare this to “the smell of soup and the sound of money” type “theft”.
  - dnautics 2mo ago
    "copying is not theft/ stealing a thing leaves one less left/ copying it makes one thing more/ that's what copying's for"
    - drdaeman 2mo ago
      Yes. Although, to be pedantic - stealing relocates (it doesn’t leave one less, it moves the only thing into another person’s possession), while copying duplicates. Copy vs move is IMHO accurate semantics.
      - dnautics 2mo ago
        i dont know what you're talking about: it's certainly one less for the victim! and if no theft occurred, nobody would be left with one less.
        drdaeman 1mo ago
        Yea, my bad, that was a brain fart. I guess I was thinking about it from the thing’s perspective rather than owners’.
- michaelmrose 2mo ago
  If you already know the answer and everyone already knows the answer you asking this question is wasting everyone's time.

nonethewiser 2mo ago

One problem. He said stealing in general is a made up term. Do you think stealing is real?

matheusmoreira 2mo ago
"Stealing" of non-rivalrous goods? I don't "think" it's not real. I know.
- nonethewiser 2mo ago
  Reread what he called a morally charged, made up term by future monopolists. Stealing. Not distilling, not stealing “non rivalrous goods.” Just stealing. Do you agree with what he actually said?
  - matheusmoreira 2mo ago
    Yes, "tokens, trained on the sum of human knowledge", are the most absolutely, unambiguously clear example of a non-rivalrous good I've ever seen. The current copyright status quo has them placed in the public domain. There is literally nothing wrong with "stealing" those tokens. They have exactly zero legal protection. "Stealing" those AI output tokens is so fundamentally impossible that it wouldn't be "stealing" in this case even if you subscribe to the copyright monopolist propaganda that copyright infringement is "stealing", and I most certainly do not. Hilariously, that means we don't even fall prey to things like DMCA anticircumvention laws. If they encrypt the reasoning traces and we break the encryption somehow, we've done nothing wrong since the data wasn't copyrighted in the first place!
    - blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
      There are bunch of legal protections. They may not fall under copyright, but depending, you could be looking at breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, CFAA, and also, if you buy them off someone else, now we’re into tortious interference.
    - nonethewiser 1mo ago
      You are in denial. He said the term “stealing.” Not this particular use case.
  - dnautics 2mo ago
    when you steal my bike you deprive me of my ability to use it. if i copy your notes, you still have access to them and may make use of them. unless somehow copying destroys the original, it is not stealing.
    - nonethewiser 1mo ago
      So you agree. Stealing a bike is a real harm and stealing isnt just some made up term meant to protect people with power and money.
  - UpsideDownRide 2mo ago
    Sticking to what was literally said and not meant by a person in a casual comment/conversation is certainly a strategy that can be used.
    - nonethewiser 1mo ago
      He said the term “stealing.” Its nonsencial to think he was referring to reverse engineering LLMs. Youd have a point if he referred to that practice and didn’t specifically identify the word stealing by itself. Funny how he doesn’t clarify that he was just talking about this specific use case. He could just agree with me that it’s sensationalist to assert that about stealing in general.
drdaeman 2mo ago
Read it in the context. The “made up” wasn’t a general statement. No one argues stealing doesn’t exist at all. My friend’s bike was stolen. What’s made up is application of this word to situations that are incompatible with what stealing is supposed to mean. Compare this to “the smell of soup and the sound of money” type “theft”.
- dnautics 2mo ago
  "copying is not theft/ stealing a thing leaves one less left/ copying it makes one thing more/ that's what copying's for"
  - drdaeman 2mo ago
    Yes. Although, to be pedantic - stealing relocates (it doesn’t leave one less, it moves the only thing into another person’s possession), while copying duplicates. Copy vs move is IMHO accurate semantics.
    - dnautics 2mo ago
      i dont know what you're talking about: it's certainly one less for the victim! and if no theft occurred, nobody would be left with one less.
      - drdaeman 1mo ago
        Yea, my bad, that was a brain fart. I guess I was thinking about it from the thing’s perspective rather than owners’.
michaelmrose 2mo ago
If you already know the answer and everyone already knows the answer you asking this question is wasting everyone's time.