zlacker

[return to "Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI"]
1. skille+fP[view] [source] 2023-05-16 15:36:28
>>vforgi+(OP)
OpenAI willing to bend the knee quite deep. If they want to do licensing and filtering and do that without fundamentally bricking the model, then by all means go ahead.
◧◩
2. mutati+9V[view] [source] 2023-05-16 15:58:40
>>skille+fP
It's not bending the knee, that's how they want it to be perceived, but what's really happening is that they're trying to pull up the ladder.
◧◩◪
3. reaper+oX[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:06:26
>>mutati+9V
It'll be a temporary 10-year moat at best. Eventually consumer-grade hardware will be exaflop-scale.
◧◩◪◨
4. classi+PZ[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:15:19
>>reaper+oX
By then it will be legally locked down and copyrighted to hell and back.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. reaper+A11[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:23:08
>>classi+PZ
I'm sorry, what?

- What is OpenAI's level of copyright now?

- How is it going to be more "copyrighted" in the future?

- How does this affect competitors differently in the future vs. the copyright that OpenAI has now?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. JumpCr+Y31[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:32:10
>>reaper+A11
> What is OpenAI's level of copyright now

Limited. They’re hoping to change that. It’s no secret that open-source models are the long-run competition to the likes of OpenAI.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. reaper+c41[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:32:58
>>JumpCr+Y31
I don't understand what "Limited" entails. I was pointedly asking for something a bit more specific.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. JumpCr+e51[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:37:21
>>reaper+c41
> don't understand what "Limited" entails

Nobody does. It’s being litigated.

They want it legislated. Model weights being proprietary by statute would close off the threat from “consumer-grade hardware” with “exaflop-scale.”

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. reaper+l61[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:42:56
>>JumpCr+e51
> "Nobody [knows what it means]" [re: knowing what 'limited' means]

Then why did you say "Limited"? Surely YOU must have meant something by it when you said it. What did YOU mean?

I don't think you're saying that you are repeating something someone else said, and you didn't think they knew what they meant by it, and you also don't know what you/they meant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you had/have a meaning in mind. If you were just repeating something someone else said who didn't know what they meant by it, then please correct me and let me know -- because that's what "nobody knows what it means" implies, but I feel like you knew what you meant so I'm failing to connect something here.

> It’s being litigated.

I'm not able to find any ongoing suits involving OpenAI asserting copyright over anything. Can you point me to one? I only see some where OpenAI is trying to weaken any existing copyright protections, to their benefit. I must be missing something.

I'm also unable to find any lobbyist / think-tank / press release talking points on establishing copyright protections for model weights.

Where did you see this ongoing litigation?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. JumpCr+J71[view] [source] 2023-05-16 16:47:54
>>reaper+l61
These are broad questions whose answers are worth serious legal time. There is a bit in the open [1][2].

[1] https://www.bereskinparr.com/doc/chatgpt-ip-strategy

[2] https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-pr...

[go to top]