It's not that hard. So if you want to ask questions or work with a Stephen King book, you have to rent it during your LLM session. OpenAi would make a small fee, the author would get the majority, and the user gets value. You don't have to be a billion-dollar company to set up a monetization structure like that. Startups could do this if they negotiate with authors.
For general questions, you can use the free wiki that's ingested into the LLM or pay a fee for general content like current events.
You keep the LLM free in the third-world out of necessity. OpenAI, in the first world, cannot ask to be treated as if it were a third-world company because we are too rich to be that ridiculous.
When Roger Bacon discovered what Gunpowder was capable of, he kept it to himself - he thought that once the poor knew how to make gunpowder, the poor would make weapons to destroy them.
We cannot let that happen with AI technology, and it is a very difficult conversation when we're talking about technology that has already replaced likely hundreds of thousands of jobs in the form of extending the amount of productivity individuals can produce.
To you, this is a moral issue, and one I absolutely agree with at its core. But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted.
> But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted.
But this is exactly what proposals like you’re responding to are trying to do. Ignoring the morality this is an economic issue. Massive economic value is potentially going to be created by stealing from individuals. Why can’t they get small kickbacks? Why must their contribution be completely devoid of remuneration for us to stand a chance of “winning a war” or keeping this technology accessible?
You're right. If there are methods to get creators paid, while ensuring unfettered access to all - it absolutely should happen. The legal system in America doesn't have a good track record of nuance, especially when nuance is necessary. My views come from the idea that the American legal system will either smite them into bankruptcy, or it will give them the precedent they need to exempt past violations, and carry on as usual.
These comments made me realize my viewpoints surrounding this issue are heavily based on the American legal system being very binary, with the majority of tech companies going all or nothing. Appeal your way up to the supreme court, and pray for the all.
In this case, it feels like the two most likely outcomes both hurt us.
It isn't in our nature at all, on the contrary. It is if that knowledge is useful for strategic purpose like economic advantages, but it is an exception.
No need to even complicate it to that degree. A wrong begets another wrong forever unless someone stops doing the next wrong thing. That's literally what it takes.
Yeah, we have a wrong conception. It's fine, society often has wrong conceptions. We are just dead wrong about ruthless capitalism. A company is a custodian of a good society, it has responsibilities that far exceed profit.
The same way we can't process what a trillion dollars looks like, we can't actually process what large scale theft looks like. For shits and giggles, these people also have a trillion dollars.
So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators (never). If we hold our principles to OpenAI (pay who you took from), they will go bankrupt. So of course they are speaking in end-game language. To suggest the race is lost even before it starts is an incredible thing.
How is it that we can theorize that the model would get better with more data, but we can't theorize that the business model would need to get bigger (pay the content creators) to train the model? Shoot first and ask questions later (or rather, BEG later).
You know, there's a creative third way which the US could approach if it had the cajones.
Allow OpenAI and other AI companies to use all data for training, but require that they pay it forward by charging royalties on profits beyond X amount of profit, where X is a number high enough to imply true AGI was reached.
The royalties could go into a fund that would be paid out like social security payments for every American starting when they were 18 years old. Companies could likewise request a one time deferred payment or something like that.
It's having your cake and eating it. Also helping ease some tensions around job loss.
Sadly, what we'll likely get is a bunch of tech leaders stumbling into wild riches, hoarding it, and then having it taken from them by force after they become complacent and drunk on power without the necessary understanding of human nature or history to see why they've brought it on themselves.
There are many possibilities. Perhaps they're allowed to use anything publicly accessible but have to release their model every x amount of time, which might be a month or a year. My biggest fear is that as happened with copyright's limited term, this limited term would get chipped away at over the years.
Another would be that they couldn't sell access to customers directly but rather must license it out to various entities at rates set by regulators. Those entities then would compete with each other for end customers. This of course might be prone to regulatory capture like happens with utilities.
Not to be funny on purpose, but we are having discussions in America currently on if we should finance aid for poverty and the like. I love your idea though.
OpenAI has become "too big to fail". They obviously can't face any meaningful repercussions, as that goes against the established form of capitalism in the US. Instead, they have to find creative ways to allow (or at least not sentence) OpenAI to any wrongdoing. Shareholders über alles.
Have we uncovered how crowds swarm digital content? It feels like these hidden algorithms trapped away inside Meta probably have the answer as well. Those would be meaningful research papers from Meta if they were ever to do it.
I’m sure how they swarm digital content is well-understood (internal to these companies, at least). They’re interested in the why, though. Being able to make viral content on demand would be incredibly valuable.
Things like humble bragging, writing styles, DMing patters, etc etc etc.
This exists because there is limited courage to call this out. There are not many polite ways to tell someone this, you would need people in their life to pull them aside and point it out. It's very similar to being the friend that pulls someone outside and explains they need to brush their teeth (someone has to do this, with love). Maybe more working professionals need to blog about this so the broader community can be educated on behavior when it comes to excess vanity and general manners.
For example, it's simply rude to broadcast your new job when some people are struggling with it (will they ever get one? will they get fired? are they good enough?). Just the very fact that there are "some" should be enough to kickstart one's manners, even if that "some" is not a lot of people.
It's simply rude to continuously market things (anything) when there are people literally ... stressing themselves over the pressure of competition. Again, as an example, a person constantly marketing their looks is putting stress and pressure on many others - this is a simple fact. The same goes for those with wealth and opportunity.
> For example, it's simply rude to broadcast your new job when some people are struggling with it (will they ever get one? will they get fired? are they good enough?). Just the very fact that there are "some" should be enough to kickstart one's manners, even if that "some" is not a lot of people.
To be fair, LinkedIn is nominally a professional networking site. Broadcasting your new job is absolutely in scope for that site.
It’s the “what the death of my dog taught me about viral content marketing” or “how my child losing her soccer game made me a better manager” posts that are out of control.
My personal favorites are people bragging about working during their wedding / funeral / vacation. “Joe is such a dedicated worker! Look he is taking time out from his bachelor party to deploy this database schema change!”
> For example, it's simply rude to broadcast your new job when some people are struggling with it
LinkedIn is a job site. It is completely appropriate to announce you got a job. I want to know that people in my network have a job whether I have one or not. It means that I can reach out to them and ask if the company is still hiring.
