Yeah read that too, that is just fucking outrageous. I really wish fuckai would channel all that anger into some concrete and sensible demands for regulation. Like making destruction of rare books for scanning illegal, or mandatory metadata tags for generative content and showing watermarks in the browser. Or labor rights. The only country regulating AI at all sensibly is China, like most recently they outlawed making addictive AI girlfriend / boyfriend apps.
PS: Just to add, the rare book thing is a bit hypocritical too. Personally I’m pretty much against copyright or intellectual property on principle, so rare books should be scanned non-destructively and be available as eBooks for free. But the argument against AI will tighten copyright, which is also what the AI techbros want. They are fine with paying some license fee to some fund to use the training data, because that will prevent others from offering AI for free (e.g. no running local open source AI models). Which makes certain they can forever collect rent on AI.
Personally I’m pretty much against copyright or intellectual property on principle, so rare books should be scanned non-destructively and be available as eBooks for free.
You’re against protecting a person’s intellectual property? So anything you make could be copied and sold by a megacorp just because they have a bigger factory and can sell it cheaper? What are you, amazon?
Why not support a library instead of creating greater need for more fucking datacenters?
But the argument against AI will tighten copyright, which is also what the AI techbros want.
They don’t want tighter copyright laws, they want to be able to pillage every ounce of untainted writing at the lowest cost so their chatbot can be trained on data that hasn’t been poisoned by their chatbot spamming slop into the internet.
No I’m opposed to the concept of intellectual property, I find the very idea obscene. Humanity has always shared ideas and knowledge. Abolishing it would prevent megacorp from selling books for profit.
Instead you would have payments directly to authors or creators etc based on views or interest, ideally on a progressive scale. So someone who starts out can make a living with even just a few fans, while someone with millions gets a bit less proportionally. There are other ideas on how to manage things and make things fair.
No, corporations love copyright. They can afford to pay licenses and buy every single book they scanned. They are also just “too big to fail”. So ideal for them would be to make the very use of any AI model require a license for IP to monopolize and squash competition. If you consider AI the “means of generation” or whatever, it’s able to do work that humans used to do. If they DO manage to shift the legal framework for this, then they get to own that work. And worse, “we” can’t make use of these AI models.
PS: A good example is how health insurance companies purposefully drive up costs of medications and healthcare. They can afford it and can negotiate in large quantities, we can’t.
This might not seem important right now, but advances in robotics are happening too, and a small LLM that can write “code” for executing tasks and manual labor could enable actual people or actual small businesses to do “subsistence farming”. You build your open source robot like you can build a 3D printer, plop a smartphone in as a control unit, and you get free food for life or make cabinets or build whatever. But not if they extend IP law to AI models because open source couldn’t afford to license the training data and they are considered piracy. Obviously this will take time yet.
IP and patents are a tool for monopolization and oppression because they want you to forever pay rent.
I see what you mean, and entirely agree with the concept of technological developments being for the people, but the example of insurance companies is evidence against this, since the person that invented insulin as a treatment for diabetes made it free for everyone by refusing to patent it, then health insurance companies took it upon themselves to charge exorbitant amounts for ‘their version’ of it.
It’s another one of those where people with good intentions are exploited by companies to make a profit
I would much rather have a world where people didnt have to patent their inventions just to protect their ability to make any money from it because of the big corps taking it and making bank through mass production
Yeah read that too, that is just fucking outrageous. I really wish fuckai would channel all that anger into some concrete and sensible demands for regulation. Like making destruction of rare books for scanning illegal, or mandatory metadata tags for generative content and showing watermarks in the browser. Or labor rights. The only country regulating AI at all sensibly is China, like most recently they outlawed making addictive AI girlfriend / boyfriend apps.
PS: Just to add, the rare book thing is a bit hypocritical too. Personally I’m pretty much against copyright or intellectual property on principle, so rare books should be scanned non-destructively and be available as eBooks for free. But the argument against AI will tighten copyright, which is also what the AI techbros want. They are fine with paying some license fee to some fund to use the training data, because that will prevent others from offering AI for free (e.g. no running local open source AI models). Which makes certain they can forever collect rent on AI.
You’re against protecting a person’s intellectual property? So anything you make could be copied and sold by a megacorp just because they have a bigger factory and can sell it cheaper? What are you, amazon?
Why not support a library instead of creating greater need for more fucking datacenters?
They don’t want tighter copyright laws, they want to be able to pillage every ounce of untainted writing at the lowest cost so their chatbot can be trained on data that hasn’t been poisoned by their chatbot spamming slop into the internet.
No I’m opposed to the concept of intellectual property, I find the very idea obscene. Humanity has always shared ideas and knowledge. Abolishing it would prevent megacorp from selling books for profit.
Instead you would have payments directly to authors or creators etc based on views or interest, ideally on a progressive scale. So someone who starts out can make a living with even just a few fans, while someone with millions gets a bit less proportionally. There are other ideas on how to manage things and make things fair.
No, corporations love copyright. They can afford to pay licenses and buy every single book they scanned. They are also just “too big to fail”. So ideal for them would be to make the very use of any AI model require a license for IP to monopolize and squash competition. If you consider AI the “means of generation” or whatever, it’s able to do work that humans used to do. If they DO manage to shift the legal framework for this, then they get to own that work. And worse, “we” can’t make use of these AI models.
PS: A good example is how health insurance companies purposefully drive up costs of medications and healthcare. They can afford it and can negotiate in large quantities, we can’t.
This might not seem important right now, but advances in robotics are happening too, and a small LLM that can write “code” for executing tasks and manual labor could enable actual people or actual small businesses to do “subsistence farming”. You build your open source robot like you can build a 3D printer, plop a smartphone in as a control unit, and you get free food for life or make cabinets or build whatever. But not if they extend IP law to AI models because open source couldn’t afford to license the training data and they are considered piracy. Obviously this will take time yet.
IP and patents are a tool for monopolization and oppression because they want you to forever pay rent.
I see what you mean, and entirely agree with the concept of technological developments being for the people, but the example of insurance companies is evidence against this, since the person that invented insulin as a treatment for diabetes made it free for everyone by refusing to patent it, then health insurance companies took it upon themselves to charge exorbitant amounts for ‘their version’ of it.
It’s another one of those where people with good intentions are exploited by companies to make a profit
I would much rather have a world where people didnt have to patent their inventions just to protect their ability to make any money from it because of the big corps taking it and making bank through mass production