• TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand the sentiment (and agree on moral grounds) but I hink this would put us at an extreme disadvantage in the development of this technology compared to competing nations. Unless you can get all countries to agree and somehow enforce this I think it dramatically hinders our ability to push forward in this space.

    • And009@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They pay for it, simple.

      Think about a code that an expert Samsung developer wrote and understanding and executing that flawlessly took 20 years of his/her experience. That person is the only one skilled enough to write it but an LLM model stole it and suggesting it every dev around the world.

      That’s a good thing if the dev gets paid to teach the model and then we pay to subscribe to it. Right now it’s breaking the economy. Organisations and startups are abusing the knowledge and laying off skilled occupation.

      • RedKrieg@lemmy.redkrieg.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope, you’re looking at it wrong. The Dev got paid to write that code and for all of their 20 years experience. The code was freely given away after that. Nobody loses when knowledge is shared, humanity wins. It gets hairy when you have businesses whose model relies on giving some content away for free and locking some behind a pay wall. Obviously using all of that to train a model without paying anything implies that they never had a subscription, but if they did have one and gave the model access? What’s the difference between that and paying someone to read all those articles? What’s the difference between training a model and paying an employee while training them to expertise? We’re acting like these models are some kind of machine that chops up text and regurgitates it, but that could describe your average college freshman just as well. We’re fast approaching the point where the distinction is meaningless. We can’t treat model training any different from teaching a student.

        • And009@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It should be available for everyone to learn, agreed. But intellectual property and copyright still means something. Artists don’t post anything online for others to steal. They want to share their work and humans look at those to learn and take inspiration.

          Obviously I’m talking at a philosophical level and everyone is allowed to have their opinion on it, but I strongly believe that they should also have to follow etiquettes and only use open source and