I don’t mind him using copyrighted materials as long as it leads to OpenAI becoming truly open source. Humans can replicate anything found in the wild with minor variations, so AI should have the same access. This is how human creativity builds upon itself. Why limit AI? We already know all the jobs people have will be replaced anyway eventually.
They should have to make the weights public if they train on data scraped from the public internet. It’s be something like copyleft by default for AI training.
Humans can replicate anything found in the wild with minor variations, so AI should have the same access
But that’s not what OpenAI is asking though. They want free access for the type of content you or I need to pay for. And they want it so they can then sell the resulting “variation” they produce
That’s not exactly true. They are selling tools for people to recreate with variation.
I propose an analogy: Let’s imagine a company sells brush that are used by painter to create art, now imagine the employees of this company go to the street to look how street artist create those amazing art piece on the ground for everyone to see (the artist does ask for donation in a hat next to the art pieces), now let’s imagine the employees stay there to look at his techniques for hours and design a new kind of brush that will make it way easier to create the same kind of art.
Would you argue that the company should not be allowed to sell their newly designed brush without giving money to the street artist ?
Should all your teachers be paid for everything you produce throughout your life ?
Should your parents gets compensated every time you use the knowledge you acquired from them ?
In case anyone reading is interested by my opinion: I think intellectual property is the dumbest concept, and one of the biggest scams of capitalism. Nobody should own any ideas. Everybody should be legally able to use anyone else’s ideas and build on them. I think we’ve been deprived of an infinity of great stories, images, lore, design, music, movies, shapes, clothes, games, etc… Because of this dumb rule that you can’t use other people’s ideas.
I propose an analogy: Let’s imagine a company sells brush…
That would be analogous to any content publicly available for free (or via donation). OpenAI wants free access to the art being sold. They also don’t really create the brush, they produced slightly modified versions of the art produced by the artists who does not receive money or credit
Should all your teachers be paid for everything you produce throughout your life ?
They definitely should be paid more. But your analogy is completely off track here since, unlike AI, humans can actually posses and develop intelligence. Not just parrot combinations or the same things we have seen before
Should your parents gets compensated every time you use the knowledge you acquired from them ?
Ok now you are just flailing but even then, yes and most do as it is a general thing that kids take care of their parents when the kids are grown and parents cannot look after themselves
In case anyone reading is interested by my opinion…
This is your best paragraph and I would agree with it. It’s not compatible with capitalism as you allude but I’d be open to radical new thinking
However, that’s is not what’s at play here either. OpenAI wants something we all have to pay for, for free, so they can then resale something else. Worst yet, the value in what OpenAI wants to sell, lies basically on never paying again to the people who produce the stuff it wants for free
But then If we agree on IP, we should not complain that openai want free access to copyrighted materials, we should use their own logic to force them to make their model open source, and free for anyone to execute on their own hardware.
They get free access to data so we should get free access to the compilation of the data. Then they can charge us for the hardware cost of running the model, but they’ll have to charge us no more than what it costs, because they will be competing with other company running the exact same model and driving the price down.
Well I agree with the concept of freeing IP but I don’t think the first step is to give such freedom to a closed, for profit, corporation. If OpenAI was indeed an open source project, then yes, but that is not the case today
If we give them free access to copyright material, what will happen is that it will be an exception for them but not for us. You know this.
That’s a good point. AIs/LLMs will exist and will necessarily learn from copyrighted materials without traceability back to the copyright owners to compensate them.
Sounds to me like AIs/LLMs can’t and shouldn’t be proprietary systems owned by private entities for profit, then.
I don’t mind him using copyrighted materials as long as it leads to OpenAI becoming truly open source. Humans can replicate anything found in the wild with minor variations, so AI should have the same access. This is how human creativity builds upon itself. Why limit AI? We already know all the jobs people have will be replaced anyway eventually.
That’s simply not going to happen lol. They aren’t just going to release the secret sauce just because it would be a nice thing to do.
They should have to make the weights public if they train on data scraped from the public internet. It’s be something like copyleft by default for AI training.
But that’s not what OpenAI is asking though. They want free access for the type of content you or I need to pay for. And they want it so they can then sell the resulting “variation” they produce
That’s not exactly true. They are selling tools for people to recreate with variation.
I propose an analogy: Let’s imagine a company sells brush that are used by painter to create art, now imagine the employees of this company go to the street to look how street artist create those amazing art piece on the ground for everyone to see (the artist does ask for donation in a hat next to the art pieces), now let’s imagine the employees stay there to look at his techniques for hours and design a new kind of brush that will make it way easier to create the same kind of art.
Would you argue that the company should not be allowed to sell their newly designed brush without giving money to the street artist ?
Should all your teachers be paid for everything you produce throughout your life ?
Should your parents gets compensated every time you use the knowledge you acquired from them ?
In case anyone reading is interested by my opinion: I think intellectual property is the dumbest concept, and one of the biggest scams of capitalism. Nobody should own any ideas. Everybody should be legally able to use anyone else’s ideas and build on them. I think we’ve been deprived of an infinity of great stories, images, lore, design, music, movies, shapes, clothes, games, etc… Because of this dumb rule that you can’t use other people’s ideas.
That would be analogous to any content publicly available for free (or via donation). OpenAI wants free access to the art being sold. They also don’t really create the brush, they produced slightly modified versions of the art produced by the artists who does not receive money or credit
They definitely should be paid more. But your analogy is completely off track here since, unlike AI, humans can actually posses and develop intelligence. Not just parrot combinations or the same things we have seen before
Ok now you are just flailing but even then, yes and most do as it is a general thing that kids take care of their parents when the kids are grown and parents cannot look after themselves
This is your best paragraph and I would agree with it. It’s not compatible with capitalism as you allude but I’d be open to radical new thinking
However, that’s is not what’s at play here either. OpenAI wants something we all have to pay for, for free, so they can then resale something else. Worst yet, the value in what OpenAI wants to sell, lies basically on never paying again to the people who produce the stuff it wants for free
But then If we agree on IP, we should not complain that openai want free access to copyrighted materials, we should use their own logic to force them to make their model open source, and free for anyone to execute on their own hardware.
They get free access to data so we should get free access to the compilation of the data. Then they can charge us for the hardware cost of running the model, but they’ll have to charge us no more than what it costs, because they will be competing with other company running the exact same model and driving the price down.
Well I agree with the concept of freeing IP but I don’t think the first step is to give such freedom to a closed, for profit, corporation. If OpenAI was indeed an open source project, then yes, but that is not the case today
If we give them free access to copyright material, what will happen is that it will be an exception for them but not for us. You know this.
That’s a good point. AIs/LLMs will exist and will necessarily learn from copyrighted materials without traceability back to the copyright owners to compensate them.
Sounds to me like AIs/LLMs can’t and shouldn’t be proprietary systems owned by private entities for profit, then.
Nor should what they produce be copyrightable in any form. Even if it’s the base upon which an artist builds.
Also, it should all be free.
Because Ai is not human creativity… or even close.
AI is great, what OpenAI does is blockchain-level idiocy.