• 3 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 13th, 2024

help-circle



  • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mltoOpen Source@lemmy.mlWeird Crosspost, but...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I mean, that’s a pretty believable claim. Most open source developers don’t even think their project will be noticed by a lot of people, let alone be used for military purposes. At worst you can accuse him of being ignorant of the realities of how his software will be used but I honestly don’t think he was outright lying and secretly wanted his software to be used in weapons or something.



  • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mltoTechnology@lemmy.worldMy AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The issue with AI is not that it’s not an impressive technology, it’s that it’s built on stolen data and is incredibly wasteful of resources. It’s a lot like cars in that regard, sure it solves some problems and is more convenient than the alternatives, but its harmful externalities vastly outweigh the benefits.

    LLMs are amazing because they steal the amazing work of humans. Encyclopedias, scientific papers, open source projects, fiction, news, etc. Every time the LLM gets something right, it’s because a human figured it out, their work was published, and some company scraped it without permission. Yet it’s the LLM that gets the credit and not the person. Their very existence is unjust because they profit off humanity’s collective labour and give nothing in return.

    No matter how good the technology is, if it’s made through unethical means, it doesn’t deserve to exist. You’re not entitled to AI more than content creators are entitled to their intellectual property.


  • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mltoOpen Source@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Any legal experts want to weigh in on whether this is even allowed? CC0 by definition has no limitations, but GPL very explicitly has limitations for what the code can be used for, and also applies to derivatives. If it was their own code but was officially submitted to the Linux repo, who owns it and gets to decide how the code can be licensed?



  • LLM scraping is a parasite on the internet. In the actual ecological definition of parasite: they place a burden on other unwitting organisms computer systems, making it harder for the host to survive or carry out their own necessary processes, solely for the parasite’s own benefit while giving nothing to the host in return.

    I know there’s an ongoing debate (both in the courts and on social media) about whether AI should have to pay royalties to its training data under copyright law, but I think they should at the very least be paying to use infrastructure while collecting the data, even free data, given that it costs the organisation hosting said data real money and resources to be scraped, and it’s orders of magnitude more money and resources compared to serving that data to individual people.

    The case can certainly be made that copying is not theft, but copying is by no means free either, especially when done at the scales LLMs do.