Comment on The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates

lettruthout@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.

  source

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Also, ingredients to a recipe aren’t covered under copyright law.

    source

    • ProstheticBrain@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      To take a poke at your lovely strawman - ingredients to a recipe may well be subject to copyright, which is why food writers make sure their recipes are “unique” in some small way. Enough to make them different enough to avoid accusations of direct plagiarism.

      source

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        In what country is that?

        Under US law, you cannot copyright recipes. You can own a specific text in which you explain the recipe. But anyone can write down the same ingredients and instructions in a different way and own that text.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • oxomoxo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I think there is some confusion here between copyright and patent, similar in concept but legally exclusive. A person can copyright the order and selection of words used to express a recipe, but the recipe itself is not copy, it can however fall under patent law if proven to be unique enough, which is difficult to prove.

        So you can technically own the patent to a recipe keeping other companies from selling the product of a recipe, however anyone can make the recipe themselves, if you can acquire it and not resell it. However that recipe can be expressed in many different ways, each having their own copyright.

        source
  • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Yes, that’s exactly the point. It should belong to humanity, which means that anyone can use it to improve themselves. Or to create something nice for themselves or others. That’s exactly what AI companies are doing. And because it is not stealing, it is all still there for anyone else. Unless, of course, the copyrightists get there way.

    source
  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Unlike regular piracy, accessing “their” product hosted on their servers using their power and compute is pretty clearly theft. Morally correct theft that I wholeheartedly support, but theft nonetheless.

    source

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

      source

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        There’s self-hosted LLMs, (e.g. Ollama), but for the purposes of this conversation, yeah - they’re centrally hosted, compute intensive software services.

        source
• masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  How do you feel about Meta and Microsoft who do the same thing but publish their models open source for anyone to use?

  source

  • lettruthout@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Well how long to you think that’s going to last? They are for-profit companies after all.

    source

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I mean we’re having a discussion about what’s fair, my inherent implication is whether or not that would be a fair regulation to impose.

      source
  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.

    The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

    Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

    They are model-available if anything.

    source

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      For the purposes of this conversation. That’s pretty much just a pedantic difference. They are paying to train those models and then providing them to the public to use completely freely in any way they want.

      It would be like developing open source software and then not calling it open source because you didn’t publish the market research that guided your UX decisions.

      source

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        You said open source. Open source is a type of licensure.

        The entire point of licensure is legal pedantry.

        And as far as your metaphor is concerned, pre-trained models are closer to pre-compiled binaries, which are expressly not considered Open Source according to the OSD.

        source
      • Arcka@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Tell me you’ve never compiled software from open source without saying you’ve never compiled software from open source.

        The only differences between open source and freeware are pedantic, right guys?

        source
  • umbrella@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    i feel like its less meaningful because we dont have access to the datasets.

    source