- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
Something something capitalist something extracting wealth from other people’s labour…
The only true answer to genai is to make all models created by skimming the commons, mandatory open weight and open sourced. If you try to buff copyrights to defeat genai, it’s going to boomerang right back in your face
I did fine without AI, they can charge what they want.
Not buying it anywaywhich is why any opensource project should have strict restrictions about how companies are allowed to use it.
big companies can (currently) legally pirate books/movies/media from torrenting sites in order to train ai algos. Source: Meta Lawsuit
Indeed, the courts have shockingly given a pass to torrenting down unauthorized copies to the LLM companies, versus how they destroyed some lives of private individuals for similar behavior…
You see, there is a huge difference you are missing here….
They are billionaires
Fun fact, recently had an argument with someone defending the favorable tax situation for the ultra wealthy.
Their argument was that billionaires did not have as much “real money” as middle class people so of course the middle class people should pay more in taxes…
Relevant to nothing, but just thinking of favorable billionaire treatment right now triggers that thought…
Doesn’t really stop them from ignoring it anyway.
deleted by creator
Not under capital. No.
current wave of AI isn’t even new technology
We had predictive text. We had neural networks. We had both for more than few decades. Someone just decides “what if predictive text was built on neural network?” and it worked much better than old solution. In fact old solution worked pretty much like one-layer neural network.
TechBros literally took something we already had, made it more expensive and sold it to investors.
ehh not exactly. the current wave within ai was started in 2017 with the google paper “attention is all you need”, which introduced the transformer architecture (the T in GPT). deep neural networks were still used for NLP before this, it was just LSTMs instead of transformers, which had various limitations
20 years? More like somewhere between 30 to 40 if we count early WWW and the Gopher+Usenet that came before it. The GPL isn’t quite that old, but the spirit behind it sure is. If we count early home-computer clubs back in the 70’s (like the one that birthed the original Apple) or the ham-radio crowd that came before it, we can push into 50+ year territory, easy.
I hadn’t considered AI being a paywall around the whole WWW but now that you mention it, it kind of looks that way. I’ve opined elsewhere that social media companies (e.g. Facebook) are building walled-gardens to keep eyeballs and attention-spans locked on their brand of reality. This would just be another avenue of attack in that strategy.
I remember frequenting MOOs and IRC, and downloading guitar tabs and chords off OLGA using clients in DOS back in the early 90s. Over 30 years ago. The Internet today is unrecognizable by comparison.
This is not new for compagies to make money on the internet using the work and information others made without compensation for the community
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs, it’s just that the price is different, you pay with your attention spans instead of money
I’m pretty sure that we’ll have freely accessible LLMs with ads baked in a way you can’t even see them at first glance (if they aren’t doing it already)What’s new with LLMs is that the information source is hidden, no credit is attributed for people that contribute to the community anymore
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs
These examples had very obvious attribution and were an easy path to you. AI on the other hand serves as the source of truth in almost all scenarios. I consider myself a savvy user and even then I find myself never actually clicking on the cited sites - just looking at their titles, most people don’t even bother with that.
Just further enshittification. Companies don’t make new things or new technologies anymore. They just find new ways to rent squat and extract fees. They’ve stolen everyone’s work, manufactured a way to give it to you first without you seeing the author’s material, and told everyone to use this method to access information so they can charge for it.
on Reddit it would be something like r/AccidentalAlienation
I mean, they’re saying you’re replaceable, but that’s just a front for layoffs. Executive leadership doesn’t care about having a functioning organization. They can easily find a job somewhere else once they demonstrate short term profits, even if it’s at the expense of the company’s long-term health
nobody wants to work these days!
I never had a license for having a big dick til they made it a requirement requestement that make it do what it as it do be it for cuz that’s what it be.
Its not weird, but its wrong and should be illegal
If you did it for free, what boss is replacing you?
Why can’t you just keep doing it?
They don’t want to replace the you that is producing free content for them to ingest, they want to replace the you that earns enough money to live.
Finally someone said it. I honestly was wondering why no one was complaining about this… I’ve worked on some open source myself, licensed it GPL, and never intended for it to be used as training data.
Doesn’t the GPL cover shit like this? There should be mass lawsuits hitting any AI that used open source software and didn’t just specifically use BSD projects or something.
If you train an LLM on GPL code, it should be illegal to sell that LLM and use it commercially without revealing ALL THE SOURCE you used and the source to regenerate that model.
never intended for it to be used as training data.
You could have chosen a different license than the GPL.
Doesn’t the GPL cover shit like this?
No. Didn’t you read the license you used?
GPL absolutely should cover shit like this. Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work, therefore it must be licensed under GPL too (with limited fair use exceptions which shouldn’t apply here). The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies.
Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work
If so, then every painter who studied Picasso is making Picasso-derived works. That’s not how copyright works.
Doesn’t the GPL cover shit like this? There should be mass lawsuits
I hope it’ll happen eventually.
Currently the USA (and that’s where most of this shit comes from) is aggressively pro AI to the point of breaking the law with government support.
BTW what OP says has happened to Linux (at large) through Google/Android, too. The GPL hasn’t stopped them but surely put some limits on their exploitation of FOSS
If you train an LLM on GPL code, it should be illegal to sell that LLM and use it commercially without revealing ALL THE SOURCE you used and the source to regenerate that model.
Also if that LLM is used to generate code - that code must also be GPL.
I’d love to see lawsuits force Microsoft and Nvidia and OpenAI to open source everything they had AI touch 😁
Yeah I mean they train ai on commercially copyrighted stuff like books that they straight up pirate so if that doesn’t stop them the open source community certainly won’t
