zlacker

[return to "The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement"]
1. dissid+B6[view] [source] 2023-12-27 14:41:17
>>ssgodd+(OP)
Even if they win against openAI, how would this prevent something like a Chinese or Russian LLM from “stealing” their content and making their own superior LLM that isnt weakened by regulation like the ones in the United States.

And I say this as someone that is extremely bothered by how easily mass amounts of open content can just be vacuumed up into a training set with reckless abandon and there isn’t much you can do other than put everything you create behind some kind of authentication wall but even then it’s only a matter of time until it leaks anyway.

Pandora’s box is really open, we need to figure out how to live in a world with these systems because it’s an un winnable arms race where only bad actors will benefit from everyone else being neutered by regulation. Especially with the massive pace of open source innovation in this space.

We’re in a “mutually assured destruction” situation now, but instead of bombs the weapon is information.

◧◩
2. gumbal+r7[view] [source] 2023-12-27 14:45:28
>>dissid+B6
This argument is moot. Just because some countries - see china - steal intellectual property it doesnt mean we should. There are rules to the games we play specifically so we dont end up like them.
◧◩◪
3. skwirl+o9[view] [source] 2023-12-27 14:55:52
>>gumbal+r7
The word ‘moot’ does not mean what you think it means.
◧◩◪◨
4. k1t+ug[view] [source] 2023-12-27 15:34:49
>>skwirl+o9
It can do though. While the proper definition is "worthy of discussion / debatable", it can also refer to a pointless debate.

"Moot derives from gemōt, an Old English name for a judicial court. Originally, moot referred to either the court itself or an argument that might be debated by one. By the 16th century, the legal role of judicial moots had diminished, and the only remnant of them were moot courts, academic mock courts in which law students could try hypothetical cases for practice. Back then, moot was used as a synonym of debatable, but because the cases students tried in moot courts were simply academic exercises, the word gained the additional sense "deprived of practical significance." Some commentators still frown on using moot to mean "purely academic," but most editors now accept both senses as standard."

- Merriam-Webster.com

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. skwirl+hi[view] [source] 2023-12-27 15:43:47
>>k1t+ug
Do you really think the commenter meant to use moot to mean “purely academic?”
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. denton+lt[view] [source] 2023-12-27 16:46:11
>>skwirl+hi
"Moot" means "arguable". That's what GP was saying.
[go to top]