zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.)

I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.

>>kbos87+Na
For all the leaks on: Secret projects, novelty training algorithms not being published anymore so as to preserve market share, custom hardware, Q* learning, internal politics at companies at the forefront of state of the art LLMs...A thunderous silence is the lack of leaks, on the exact datasets used to train the main commercial LLMs.

It is clear OpenAI or Google did not use only Common Crawl. With so many press conferences why did no research journalist ask yet from OpenAI or Google to confirm or deny if they use or used LibGen?

Did OpenAI really bought an ebook of every publication from Cambridge Press, Oxford Press, Manning, APress, and so on? Did any of investors due diligence, include researching the legality of the content used for training?

>>belter+kl
We all remember when Aaron Swartz got hit with a wire tapping and intent to distribute federal crime for downloading JSTR stuff right?

It's really disgusting, IMO, that corporations that go above and beyond that sort of behavior are seeing NO federal investigations for this sort of behavior. Yet a private citizen does it and it's threats of life in prison.

This isn't new, but it speaks to a major hole in our legal system and the administration of it. The Feds are more than willing to steamroll an individual but will think twice over investigating a large corporation engaged in the same behavior.

>>cogman+js
What happened to Aaron Swartz was terrible. I find that what he was doing was outright good. IMO the right reading isn't to make sure anyone doing something similar faces the same way, but to make the information far more free, whether it's a corporation using it or not. I don't want them to steamroll everyone equally here, but to not steamroll anyone.

>>hibiki+HA
I don't want them to steamroll everyone equally here, but to not steamroll anyone.

I think you're nissing the point, and putting cart before horse. If you ensure that corporations are treated as stringently as people are sometimes, the reverse is true. And that means your goal will presumably be obtained, as the corporate might, becomes the little guy's win.

All with no unjust treatment.

>>b112+MK
Huh. I see downvotes. I am mystified, for if people and corporations are both treated stringently under the law, corporations will fight to have overly restrictive laws knocked down.

I envision pitting corporate body against corporate body, when one corporatism lobbies, works to (for example) extend copyrights, others will work to weaken copyright.

That doesn't happen as vigilantly currently, because there is no corporate incentive. They play the old, ask for forgiveness, rather than permission angle.

Anyhow. I just prefer to set my enemies against my enemies. More fun.