martin-t

7 ms·

31.
by martin-t 6mo ago
People who think LLMs are neutral tools are delusional. They will be used not just to shape public discourse (like "social networks") but more importantly they can be used to shape an individual's thinking. If facebook/t
32.
by martin-t 6mo ago
As a guy who used to run game servers[0] and some other small-web stuff, I hate that this is one of the first questions that springs to mind today, but I'd also like to know. [0]: in ancient times when server meant an actual server
33.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Yes, tools are just tools - they are not good or bad by themselves but by how people use them. (Though of course, some tools are much easier to use for one side than the other.) The second issue is surveillance does not affect all crime[0]
34.
by martin-t 6mo ago
I'll happily take 20 missing people per day in exchange for the ability to organize a demonstration[0] or an uprising when needed and for not being disappeared myself when the surveillance net falls into the hands of the next (or curre
35.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> A security researcher like myself would be crazy to live in those places Just this alone is incredibly naive. People don't choose where they are born and they don't uproot their entire family and social connections when laws
36.
by martin-t 6mo ago
That's my point. You don't care about freedom or user rights and you never did. LLMs don't change that, they just give people like you a way to (for now) legally take without giving back and without respecting the wishes of t
37.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> What I find unacceptable is that now they consider as their private property what they have mined from public lands. So how do you propose to fix that without a law similar to copyright? (At least similar to the intent of copyright, th
38.
by martin-t 6mo ago
It all boils down to some people thinking they should be able to use other people's work for free. > patents Patents, unlike copyright, are not automatic. Which indicates that the people who expended their limited lifetime to invent
39.
by martin-t 6mo ago
"They admit it themselves." "Sounds like a no." This level of discussion does not belong on HN.
40.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> Can you prove your work was used in any of these models? They admit it themselves. We also know how aggressively they scrape everything they can get their hands on because projects like Anubis[0] exist > And if so what percentage of
41.
by martin-t 6mo ago
If you think the belief that people should be rewarded pro productive and useful work is narcissism, then you need to either learn about work or narcissism.
42.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Great, you have that right. But it begs the question why you chose (A)GPL instead of a permissive license in the first place. If you are OK with people training and using LLMs on top of your work not giving users the right to inspect and mo
43.
by martin-t 6mo ago
In that case, hopefully the copyright mafia will take the money from US and Chinese LLM companies and redistribute it to the people who did the actual work fueling the models, such as myself. I did not spend 10 years writing (A)GPL code for
44.
by martin-t 6mo ago
That's what I meant in the second sentence. It's not just about fines, many countries have support for families with children. I don't think the rich should get more money per child. For fines, it absolutely makes sense. A ha
45.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Well, inflation is a trick how to steal from people without actually reaching into their wallets. In that regard, it's genius. Imagine the alternative that once in a while the government says it needs more money and just subtracts it f
46.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> If it's actually 'laundering' then it's invalid to begin with. It's laundering in any reasonable meaning of the word. Whether it's legal according to the letter of the law is being decided. Please differen
47.
by martin-t 6mo ago
If laws were written by engineers, all sums of money would be expressed relative to median income. And at that point it wouldn't be a stretch for most people to make the connection that some people are more privileged than others and f
48.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> Why would the exceptions be only for humans? For starters because you can't own humans. If it's possible to launder copyrighted work through something which can be owned, then rich people get an advantage because they can own
49.
by martin-t 6mo ago
You're saying the same thing like it's relevant. What matters to me is that the source code is clearly stored encoded/compressed in the model. That to me means the license of the code should apply to the model. Now we just ne
50.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Alright, I did make that assumption because I've seen and heard people talk about LLM as people. It worries me that otherwise functional and reasonable people, some of them my friends, have been so easily been convinced by a machine wh
51.
by martin-t 6mo ago
It's a fallacy. Someone being utterly wrong and dismissing them for it so does not logically make me claim easily dismissible.
52.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> The reason is that it is absolutely impossible to write any kind of program that is not a derivative of earlier programs. And that's why copyright has exceptions for humans. You're right copyright was the wrong tool for code
53.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Yup. Not my problem. You could even say it strongly would very strongly incentivize the LLM companies to be on their best behavior, otherwise people would start revoking consent en-masse and they'd have to keep training new models all
54.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> trained out of the kids I don't think you understand how children work. You probably imagine some Brave New World kind of conditioning. Not to mention, those people will want their kids to have those traits. > Hopefully, your
55.
by martin-t 6mo ago
A lesson from gamedev is that players will deliberately restrict themselves - sometimes to make the game more fun or challenging, sometimes to appeal to their aesthetic principles. If/when superhuman AI is achieved, those limitations w
56.
by martin-t 6mo ago
And it proves the code is stored (in a compressed form) in the model.
57.
by martin-t 6mo ago
You're right, legally speaking. But you shouldn't be right. I mean, morally. The law is a compromise between what the people in power want and what they can get away with without people revolting. It has nothing to do with moralit
58.
by martin-t 6mo ago
UBI only means you won't starve or die of exposure. It doesn't mean that people who are already rich today won't become so obscenely rich tomorrow they are above the law or can change the law (and decide who gets medical trea
59.
by martin-t 6mo ago
You are agreeing with me, you just don't know it yet. 1) The financial aspect: As you say, more and more advanced DRM requires more and more advanced tools. Even assuming advanced AI can guide any human to do the physical part, that st
60.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Yeah, an LLM, being a machine obviously shouldn't hold copyright. But that doesn't stop people claiming that running vast amounts of code through an LLM can strip copyright from it. Ultimately LLMs (the first L stands for large an

More ›