AI has a vibrant open source scene and is definitely not owned by a few people.

A lot of the data to train it is only owned by a few people though. It is record companies and publishing houses winning their lawsuits that will lead to dystopia. It’s a shame to see so many actually cheering them on.

If you treat arson and planting a bomb the same, you just end up with more people planting bombs.

I just want the guy managing ressources to not be plowing children.

They won’t be rewarded. Data brokers, record companies, publishing houses, getty, etc will be rewarded.

You want to shoot open source initiatives in the face and give a handful of companies a monopoly, so rich people can get richer.

seeing the huge amount of data needed for competitive generative AI, then open source AI cannot afford the data and dies.

How does that change if copyrights are strengthened? The open source scene dies and the big players will still keep scraping.

AI has always been able to train on copyrighted data because it’s considered transformative.

If this changes, seeing the huge amount of data needed for competitive generative AI, then open source AI cannot afford the data and dies. Strengthening copyrights would force everyone out of the game except Meta, Google and Microsoft.

The system that open source AI grew out of is exactly what is being attacked.

Those authors aren’t in the equation anymore. They gave their work to publishing houses and won’t be asked about what it is to be used for.

Because if AI has to pay, you kill the open-source scene and give a fat monopoly to the handful of companies that can afford the data. Not to mention that data is owned by a few publishing house and none of the writers are getting a dime.

Yes it’s silly that students pay so much, but we should be arguing for less copyrights so we can have both proper prices in education and a vibrant open source scene.

Most people argue for a strengthening of copyrights which only helps data brokers and big AI players. If you want subscription services and censorship while still keeping all the drawbacks of AI, this is how you do it.

The best would be to have recorded audio that slowly goes down in volume, with the tone at full blast at the end

The video is 15 minutes long and at the four-second mark flashes a screenshot from Zoolander, in which the protagonist unveils the “Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good.”

It also features a punchy techno backing track while wasting the reviewer’s time with approximately 14 minutes of inactivity.

Believe it or not, getting votes is also part of their job. It’s an integral part of the system and usually works if they actually try to represent us.

Imagine complaining about the plumber who tried to fix your leaky pipe with a paper napkin, and have someone saying you are scapegoating them. It’s their fucking job to prevent this.

I would donate all my savings towards a movie/documentary of Jesse Eisenberg sitting at home alone and just living his life and entertaining himself with his drab hobbies, just so he is too busy to do any actual movies.

Literally anybody else, please

The outputs are still bound to copyright laws. Tracing pixel per pixel over an artwork doesn’t make it immune to copyright laws, maliciously over training gen ai to act like a database and outright copy shouldn’t either.

If you have a carbon copy of someone’s github, it doesn’t matter if you generated it, it’s still a copy. Although code is a difficult example since I’m not entirely where the line is for one repo to be different then the other when they are accomplishing the same task.

I always imagined businesses just grabbed the gpl software and would tell their employees to rewrite it but different. Most things I dive down into seem to stem from one algorithm or two from a paper and the rest is fluff.

Yup. Audio books aren’t very big once converted to a reasonable format and with the amount of space these days, I can comfortably keep a dozen on me at all times.

In such a scenario, it will be worth it. Llm aren’t databases that just hold copy pasted information. If we get to a point where it can spit out whole functional githubs replicating complex software, it will be able to do so with most software regardless of being trained on similar data or not.

All software will be a prompt away including the closed sourced ones. I don’t think you can get more open source then that. But that’s only if strident laws aren’t put in place to ban open source ai models, since Google will put that one prompt behind a paychecks worth of money if they can.

I’m not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.

The dismantling goes into overdrive if they send all the juges who can stop it on vacation. I really want them to shut it down but I don’t think it would help.

My dogs face when I’m holding bacon is how I imagine Republicans look when they see a boot.