There's no sense in worrying how closely the university aligns real policy with various theoretical economic ideals.
If we allow copyright law to directly inhibit technological advancement then we defeat the very purpose of copyright law.
That said, it need not inhibit if they just pay for using it. Hopefully they will sue for reasonable compensation, noting that they have such a privilege only in a handful of countries so any restriction is strictly a restriction on those countries, which is a huge technological advantage for all the rest.
Copyright law can be misused and can inhibit some advancement, but the fact that “certain groups” or “certain companies” can just ignore laws with no ramifications is something else. If it’s probably life-saving or a pipeline of a dream (see Elon musk always promising FSD), then they should pay or prove the end result.
I wouldn't say they should. In some cases there is no other choice. Defense competition exists whether it's desirable or not. Pretending otherwise won't help to win a lawsuit.
That is a large enough gray area for me that I think it should be more regulated. If llms do truly help “a greater good” then the company, govt, or something should pay or work with the data hosters. Otherwise it’s back to llm company needs your biometrics to save the world…eventually…, but trust them.
I guess we can agree to disagree, as I don’t think I can ever 100% trust any unregulated company with infinite data/computation.
*regardless of their perceived goal
They may say they have the best of intentions, but call me skeptical.
You've misunderstood my point then, I think. I don't care about greater purpose at all and I don't think there is one.
America won't let China have defense technology that it doesn't get to use.
It has nothing to do with OpenAI, or any other company, nor artists, nor right from wrong. If OpenAI eats small children for breakfast, or feeds all the hungry in Africa, makes no difference whatsoever.
You can ignore that fact and stand on a mountain and shout about OpenAI being evil all day long.
But you're going to lose the lawsuit if you ignore the facts of reality. No matter how loud you cry about it.
Fair enough, I think we are in agreement then. I just greatly dislike the platitudes of OpenAI or llm companies being on a high horse with laws, when something like this happens and bends backwards against general ownership.
1 single person in their basement would be thrown in jail for downloading the whole internet, but a company with “plans” is fine.
Yes, just give me my food ration comrade. It is all I need to keep making art for the glory of The Party and it's Supreme Leader. Everything I do I do for the glory of AI. AI is progress!
I don't care what you worry about. What's mine is mine. You can't give it away for me and then say, "as long as they give you a few coins as a token of their appreciation."
Would you be happy if I sold your house for $10,000, so long as I give you half the proceeds? Or would you, I dunno, call the police.
Comments
The CCP adopted capitalism too.
There's no sense in worrying how closely the university aligns real policy with various theoretical economic ideals.
If we allow copyright law to directly inhibit technological advancement then we defeat the very purpose of copyright law.
That said, it need not inhibit if they just pay for using it. Hopefully they will sue for reasonable compensation, noting that they have such a privilege only in a handful of countries so any restriction is strictly a restriction on those countries, which is a huge technological advantage for all the rest.
I try to see both sides.
Copyright law can be misused and can inhibit some advancement, but the fact that “certain groups” or “certain companies” can just ignore laws with no ramifications is something else. If it’s probably life-saving or a pipeline of a dream (see Elon musk always promising FSD), then they should pay or prove the end result.
I agree. You can be right (in my opinion), and stupidly file a bad case (in my opinion), simultaneously.
You can be right, and dead at the same time.
Just because I think they filed stupid doesn't imply that I think they are wrong.
…you’re saying the folks who tried suing OpenAI for accumulating their data filed a stupid copyright? And dead?
Yup. They need to start with the fact that competing nations have access to it no matter what anyone says or does.
Negotiate from there.
So for you, everyone should only be good as the worst nation.
I wouldn't say they should. In some cases there is no other choice. Defense competition exists whether it's desirable or not. Pretending otherwise won't help to win a lawsuit.
That is a large enough gray area for me that I think it should be more regulated. If llms do truly help “a greater good” then the company, govt, or something should pay or work with the data hosters. Otherwise it’s back to llm company needs your biometrics to save the world…eventually…, but trust them.
Yeah maybe it should be. But for now, they should sue for something reasonable. Better than nothing.
I guess we can agree to disagree, as I don’t think I can ever 100% trust any unregulated company with infinite data/computation. *regardless of their perceived goal
They may say they have the best of intentions, but call me skeptical.
Sure. I guess I don't see how that's relevant to the case.
As you said earlier, OpenAI can do nothing wrong whatsoever with the data/computation they have for their “greater purpose”.
We disagree on this point.
You've misunderstood my point then, I think. I don't care about greater purpose at all and I don't think there is one.
America won't let China have defense technology that it doesn't get to use.
It has nothing to do with OpenAI, or any other company, nor artists, nor right from wrong. If OpenAI eats small children for breakfast, or feeds all the hungry in Africa, makes no difference whatsoever.
You can ignore that fact and stand on a mountain and shout about OpenAI being evil all day long.
But you're going to lose the lawsuit if you ignore the facts of reality. No matter how loud you cry about it.
Fair enough, I think we are in agreement then. I just greatly dislike the platitudes of OpenAI or llm companies being on a high horse with laws, when something like this happens and bends backwards against general ownership.
1 single person in their basement would be thrown in jail for downloading the whole internet, but a company with “plans” is fine.
Yes, just give me my food ration comrade. It is all I need to keep making art for the glory of The Party and it's Supreme Leader. Everything I do I do for the glory of AI. AI is progress!
Personally I worry that AI is an existential threat that is totally out of anyone's control by now.
Not sure if you read my comment in a different light or not, but I do get the feeling you misunderstood my meaning.
I don't care what you worry about. What's mine is mine. You can't give it away for me and then say, "as long as they give you a few coins as a token of their appreciation."
Would you be happy if I sold your house for $10,000, so long as I give you half the proceeds? Or would you, I dunno, call the police.
I don't think your analogy is representative of reality.
If you copy what my house looks like, no, I won't call the police.
Especially if you copy it for the purpose of empowering the police (govt) to protect my actual house.
That's a much more accurate analogy.
Mmm, yes. No architects, only police.
The architect's financial gain comes second to my safety.
Comrade, of course! That's why I recognized you immediately as a brother in communism. Hail the party, from which all good things come.
Second to safety is not the same as non existent. Nice try though.