Meta stole from everyone, including those that struggle to make ends meet, so it doesn’t matter that they gave you back some of it. Any moral qualms should evaporate when you consider that they did it to create shareholder value and the rest is philanthropy (aka pretend tax). As a socialist I believe that man is owed for his work and you can’t take from him even though technology makes it so easy.
As a socialist I believe intellectual property is a falsehood and technological advancement should be for the public good. Open source LLMs are for the public good.
Given the options between having open source LLMs and the US Govt banning non-corpo non-proprietary LLMs and giving a free pass to people like Musk and Altman and Zucc to monopolize, I happily pick the former.
You’re delusional if you think they will pay anyone, the only way zucc will pay is with a guillotine.
Corpos will make inter-platform deals that’ll simply make all online data licensable for the right price and enrich each other so you can’t avoid it while still actually being a career creative, but price out academic researchers and the public sector so that all fruits of it stay behind closed R&D doors and be free of ethics etc.
Continuing in your role as a useful idiot, you’ll also most likely also foot the bill for it via subsidies from your taxes to “develop the AI sector” in some anti-China dick measuring contest by the US.
You will then be sold this data back via proprietary chat bots via a monthly subscription and you better pay up because once it gets really good, it will become mandatory to use for just about any job, leaving you with no choice.
The images however are technically under their own copyright, which in practice means each of the billions of images could or could not have a licence that implicitly or explicitly forbids AI training use or forbids it only for commercial use.
Whether such a license is legally binding is at present unknown though, since licenses primarily deal with reproductions, which the pro-AI folks argue isn’t the case, and that training of NNs is more akin to viewing an image and memorising the patterns and relationships within, like a person viewing it.
That would make it non-infringing and therefore the model itself libre. In that case Mistral and LLaMa are also libre as long as the model itself is open source, which in this case really means “open weights”, so not like GPT and anything by “”“OpenAI”“”.
Weights are the result of a model being trained essentially. They’re they key bit that makes it or breaks it and how it works. Given that and knowing the structure of the model and framework used you can refine, modify and distribute it.
Those against AI will say that it’s more akin to file compression and that in one form or another it’s misuse. That would make the model an infringing derivative work and as such nor libre even if the model weights are open source.
In a way though you could argue that me vaguely memorising the imagery of a dude dressed in white holding a laser sword is just a lossy compressed copy of the copyrighted work of Star wars, and it’d be absurd to think that’s a violation and that infringement only occurs if I reproduce a work of substantial similarity commercially from that memory.
If I use Krita and draw a beautiful landscape which has been informed and inspired by at least in part by a movie I saw, is that copyright infringement or not? What if I use AI?
Well, current laws don’t say. We measure infringement in substantial similarity, provenance of information only comes in later (e.g. to prove against accidental similarity).
That’s also my own personal stance on the legal side of things, so up to you how you see it.
Lieber Genosse, der Hype um Affirming Incompetence (AI) ist der dieser Zeit die höchste Ausdruck der Entfremdung der Menschen von sich selbst, Zeugnis des Begehrens nach und Voraussetzung also der weitergehenden Fetischisierung seines Zugriffs auf Welt. Wie jedoch Bernard Stiegler so schön bemerkte: Kein Savoir-vivre ohne Savoir-faire! Dies seien die unabdingbaren Bedingungen für die Befreiung der Menschheit aus den sich selbst angelegten Ketten zur Errichtung einer geschwisterlichen Ordnung!
(now have fun w/ an LLM’s attempt of “advancement”!)
Lolwut? Public good is self-entitlement? Go read a fucking book. Communists are not pro-copyright, especially not when it only benefits the giant corpos.
Another day, another entitled artoid larping as progressive blocked.
The world is in a mess is that we were told to choose between fascists and pro-market technocrat libertarians pretending to be leftists. This is a worldwide issue that’s doubly important because those liberals guilt trip us for not supporting them and that’s why I’m just laying little bricks here and there. At the end of the tunnel we either rework our society into a socialist one or we succumb to feudal lords again. Years of neoliberal hegemony needs to be undone so I try to go against the grain like that sometimes, hoping I made someone think.
I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.
I believe in equal opportunity but reject that you should be able to „win” in any system. I believe in empathy over soulless meritocracy. I believe in collective ownership but don’t reject that one is owed for his work. You could say it all stems from egalitarianism but this term has been caricatured by liberals too. For a long time I thought social democracy as an ideology gives you enough levers in the system to steer it toward that goal but time and time again it turned out that in most places SocDem parties are no different from liberal ones and so I learned from past mistakes.
I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.
What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.
When you think payment you think „money” but I think „fair” :) We’ve been broken by capitalist hegemony to the point it’s hard of thinking of something different.
Don’t give me that slop. No one except the biggest names are getting a dime out it once OpenAI buys up all the data and kills off their competition. It’s also highly transformative, which used to be perfectly legal.
Copyright laws have been turned into a joke, only protecting big money and their interests.
Meta stole from everyone, including those that struggle to make ends meet, so it doesn’t matter that they gave you back some of it. Any moral qualms should evaporate when you consider that they did it to create shareholder value and the rest is philanthropy (aka pretend tax). As a socialist I believe that man is owed for his work and you can’t take from him even though technology makes it so easy.
As a socialist I believe intellectual property is a falsehood and technological advancement should be for the public good. Open source LLMs are for the public good.
Given the options between having open source LLMs and the US Govt banning non-corpo non-proprietary LLMs and giving a free pass to people like Musk and Altman and Zucc to monopolize, I happily pick the former.
You’re delusional if you think they will pay anyone, the only way zucc will pay is with a guillotine.
Corpos will make inter-platform deals that’ll simply make all online data licensable for the right price and enrich each other so you can’t avoid it while still actually being a career creative, but price out academic researchers and the public sector so that all fruits of it stay behind closed R&D doors and be free of ethics etc.
Continuing in your role as a useful idiot, you’ll also most likely also foot the bill for it via subsidies from your taxes to “develop the AI sector” in some anti-China dick measuring contest by the US.
You will then be sold this data back via proprietary chat bots via a monthly subscription and you better pay up because once it gets really good, it will become mandatory to use for just about any job, leaving you with no choice.
Or you can support FOSS LLMs.
I support FOSS LLMs, but which actually exist? Which LLMs have open-sourced all their training data?
Mistral? Deepseek?
Not LLM but also SD which uses a very popular free dataset.
Can I freely download all the training data for any of those? I was under the impression they were all trained on non-licensed and copyrighted data.
It’s complicated.
I know Stable Diffusion best so I’ll speak to that, they used to the LAION-5B dataset, which is, in practice freely available to download and use:
https://www.kaggle.com/code/vitaliykinakh/guie-laion-5b-collect-and-download
https://github.com/opendatalab/laion5b-downloader
It’s also on HuggingFace but it’s unavailable.
https://huggingface.co/datasets/danielz01/laion-5b
But you can use this smaller newer version:
https://huggingface.co/datasets/laion/relaion2B-en-research
Whether it’s appropriately licensed is an unsolved question though.
The dataset itself and the text portion of the text-imags pairs needed for training is CC-BY-SA, the newer versions linked above are CC-BY-4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
The images however are technically under their own copyright, which in practice means each of the billions of images could or could not have a licence that implicitly or explicitly forbids AI training use or forbids it only for commercial use.
Whether such a license is legally binding is at present unknown though, since licenses primarily deal with reproductions, which the pro-AI folks argue isn’t the case, and that training of NNs is more akin to viewing an image and memorising the patterns and relationships within, like a person viewing it.
That would make it non-infringing and therefore the model itself libre. In that case Mistral and LLaMa are also libre as long as the model itself is open source, which in this case really means “open weights”, so not like GPT and anything by “”“OpenAI”“”.
Weights are the result of a model being trained essentially. They’re they key bit that makes it or breaks it and how it works. Given that and knowing the structure of the model and framework used you can refine, modify and distribute it.
Those against AI will say that it’s more akin to file compression and that in one form or another it’s misuse. That would make the model an infringing derivative work and as such nor libre even if the model weights are open source.
In a way though you could argue that me vaguely memorising the imagery of a dude dressed in white holding a laser sword is just a lossy compressed copy of the copyrighted work of Star wars, and it’d be absurd to think that’s a violation and that infringement only occurs if I reproduce a work of substantial similarity commercially from that memory.
If I use Krita and draw a beautiful landscape which has been informed and inspired by at least in part by a movie I saw, is that copyright infringement or not? What if I use AI?
Well, current laws don’t say. We measure infringement in substantial similarity, provenance of information only comes in later (e.g. to prove against accidental similarity).
That’s also my own personal stance on the legal side of things, so up to you how you see it.
Lieber Genosse, der Hype um Affirming Incompetence (AI) ist der dieser Zeit die höchste Ausdruck der Entfremdung der Menschen von sich selbst, Zeugnis des Begehrens nach und Voraussetzung also der weitergehenden Fetischisierung seines Zugriffs auf Welt. Wie jedoch Bernard Stiegler so schön bemerkte: Kein Savoir-vivre ohne Savoir-faire! Dies seien die unabdingbaren Bedingungen für die Befreiung der Menschheit aus den sich selbst angelegten Ketten zur Errichtung einer geschwisterlichen Ordnung!
(now have fun w/ an LLM’s attempt of “advancement”!)
You’re confusing self entitlement to stuff with the left.
Lolwut? Public good is self-entitlement? Go read a fucking book. Communists are not pro-copyright, especially not when it only benefits the giant corpos.
Another day, another entitled artoid larping as progressive blocked.
That must have touched a sensitive spot lol.
Calling property labor, doesn’t make you a socialist.
You’re confusing libleft with left.
No. Seriously, why do you want to call yourself a socialist?
The world is in a mess is that we were told to choose between fascists and pro-market technocrat libertarians pretending to be leftists. This is a worldwide issue that’s doubly important because those liberals guilt trip us for not supporting them and that’s why I’m just laying little bricks here and there. At the end of the tunnel we either rework our society into a socialist one or we succumb to feudal lords again. Years of neoliberal hegemony needs to be undone so I try to go against the grain like that sometimes, hoping I made someone think.
When you call yourself a socialist, what do you mean by that term?
I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.
I believe in equal opportunity but reject that you should be able to „win” in any system. I believe in empathy over soulless meritocracy. I believe in collective ownership but don’t reject that one is owed for his work. You could say it all stems from egalitarianism but this term has been caricatured by liberals too. For a long time I thought social democracy as an ideology gives you enough levers in the system to steer it toward that goal but time and time again it turned out that in most places SocDem parties are no different from liberal ones and so I learned from past mistakes.
What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.
When you think payment you think „money” but I think „fair” :) We’ve been broken by capitalist hegemony to the point it’s hard of thinking of something different.
Don’t give me that slop. No one except the biggest names are getting a dime out it once OpenAI buys up all the data and kills off their competition. It’s also highly transformative, which used to be perfectly legal.
Copyright laws have been turned into a joke, only protecting big money and their interests.