Mahlzeit @ Mahlzeit @feddit.de

Posts

1

Comments

90

Joined

2 yr. ago

That ought to satisfy all those who wanted "consent" for training data.

It just seems that Google should have been able to move faster. Yes, they did publish a lot of important stuff, but seeing the splash that came from Stability and OpenAI, they seem to have done so little with it. What their researchers published was important but I can't help thinking, that a public university would have disseminated such research more openly and widely. Well, I may be wrong. I don't have inside knowledge.

For the fine-tuning stage at the end, where you turn it into a chatbot, you need specific training data (eg OpenOrca). People have used ChatGPT to generate such data. Come to think of it, if you use Mechanical Turk, then you almost certainly include text from ChatGPT.

Quite possible. Whatever the case, they apparently saw no pressure to innovate. It implies that tech development is being slowed down by the Big Tech monopolies.

I could download my file and be done with it.

That's true, but that's kinda delivering a physical copy via the net, and you pay the storage medium. I understood OP as talking specifically about online "property".

Took em long enough.

I wonder if they used ChatGPT to create any of the training data.

If you want this to be unpopular, then you need to point out some of the implications. Lemme...

They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it.

This means, that those who think that AI training should require a license are not standing up for artists. They are shilling for intellectual property owners; for the corporations and rich people.

If it requires a license, that means that money must be paid to property owners simply because they are owners. The more someone owns, the more money they get. Rich people own the most property, so rich people get the most money.

And what do employees get? They get to pay.

But how often do you install the same game? A streaming movie needs to be (partially) downloaded every time someone watches it. But yes, I shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this ends up being a higher bandwidth cost per dollar purchasing price.

When you keep a backup, then the download was basically just a way of delivering a physical copy. I answered why we can't have online property.

As to why many don't allow you to keep a private copy. For the obvious reason: To maintain control over their property and monetize it to the highest degree possible.

Hah! Yeah, that's so weird when seen from my culture (Germany). Here, prosecutors must enforce all laws on the books. Anything less would be a criminal offense. The actual day-to-day problems are very similar, though. It is kinda infuriating that the English system works as well as it does.

That takes a lot less bandwidth than streaming. All business have fixed costs. Blockbuster Video had to pay rent for physical stores, for example. Delivering via the net is relatively cheap compared to stores or physical postage. I'd be surprised if GOG's cost aren't much lower than anything physical.

If it doesn't bother you that you are threatened with jail over something you might do with your own property, in your own home, without affecting others, then... Well, I can see that you would be living a very jolly life indeed. Good on ya.

IMO, we need to ask: What benefits the people? or What is in the public interest?

That should be the only thing of importance. That's probably controversial. Some will call it socialism. It is pretty much how the US Constitution sees it, though.

Maybe you agree with this. But when you talk about "models trained on public data" you are basically thinking in terms of property rights, and not in terms of the public benefit.

The models (ie the weights specifically) may not be copyrightable, anyways. There's no copyright on the result of number crunching. Once the model is further fine-tuned, there might be copyright, but it's still unlike anything covered by copyright in the past.

One analogy I have is a 3D engine. The engineers design the look of the typical output by setting parameters, but that does not create a specific copyright on the parameters. There's copyright on the design documents, the code, the UI, if any and maybe other stuff. It's not quite the same, though.

Some jurisdictions have IP on databases. I think that would cover AI models. If I am right, then that means that any license agreements that come with models are ineffective in the US.

However, to copy these models, you first need to get your hands on them. They are still trade secrets, so don't on leaks.

Maybe it's not just what the rich want.

OP is unhappy about how little control we have over some of our property. The catch is that this property is also the property of someone else. Media is (mostly) the intellectual property of someone, and the owners can decide over it. So, in order for OP to have more control over "digital property", one would need laws that limit control over property. Tough sell.

If you look at threads on AI, you will find them full of people who want expanded intellectual property. I doubt those are all bots or shills. I think they just want control over their own property, without considering that they are forging their own chains. When you increase the power of property, you increase the power of the rich and diminish your own.

Digital media means that there is an ongoing service behind it. The servers use energy. The parts age and break. It requires a continuing feed of labor and resources to keep going.

Imagine a streaming service that is all based on buying media, instead of subscription or renting. Then suppose all the customers somehow decide that the media they own are enough for now (maybe because money is tight, because inflation). With no more cash coming in, the service goes bankrupt.

In principle, you could have a type of license that allows you to get a new copy in any way you can (torrent, etc.). That would be hard to police, though.

FWIW, owning a physical copy isn't all that, either. There are various ways built-in to make life harder for customers, like geo-blocking. Bypassing these tends to be a criminal offense.

Oh. I see. The attempts to extract training data from ChatGPT may be criminal under the CFAA. Not a happy thought.

I did say "making available" to exclude "hacking".

Sure, you can put something up and explicitly deny permission to visit the link. But courts rarely back up that kind of silliness.

Very true. There's another possibility, though: That pay for certain employees (ie executives) is too high. It may not be included in 3, if the pay is normal. However, that "normal" may be considered immoral, and/or straight market failure,

How do you think it works?

In reality, what you're saying makes no sense.

Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it. Exceptions may be if it happens accidentally or if the uploader does not have the necessary permissions. If users had to make sure that everything was correct, they'd basically have to get a written permission via the post before visiting any page.

Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement under US law. Using the web is rarely fair use because there is no copyright infringement. When training data is regurgitated, that is mostly fair use. If the data is public domain/out of copyright, then it is not.