Sort of. Unless you go to a private university taxes go to the public schools to fun facilities and wages for the educators. While you may pay tuition, the overall cost of that education and the services needed for one to do research doesn't come wholely out of your pocket.
Now I agree you should be compensated more, as someone who tried to get published academically and has filed patents I can see why there is a split of compensation.
Wdym? Scientists usually don't get paid to publish. The person you replied to, probably meant academic publishing as in:
Scientist does research and compiles manuscript, usually via public money, even in shithole countries like the US
Scientist submits manuscript to for profit journal
Journal outsources proofreading to other scientists, who do it for free
Manuscript is accepted or revised on scientists time and money
Scientist pays for publishing
For Profit journal either charges extra for "open" publication or charges scientist and other scientists for access, usually by agreements with the respective library
Profit! (On the journals part)
Where is the split of compensation? For patents there is, but for academic publishing usually not.
I think this is the story of humanity. It ain't getting better until we massacre the inhumanly rich, eat Thier families while the world watches, and force evil socialism on shared intellectual property
Donāt use diesel. Itās hard to ignite with just a lighter. Use gasoline and styrofoam for your homemade bonfire starter. Itāll ignite much easier and stick to all those logs that tend to hoardā¦leaves.
See, here's the thing. Everybody loves to point at the guilitine, and the French Revolution. They love to say "Lets do what they did!"
Here's the problem. Nobody talks about what came next.
Because what happened was, you had one group of rich assholes who controlled everything, and treated everybody else like shit. So the French chopped off their heads, and got rid of these rich assholes.
And what happened next? Well, a lot of infighting, but the end result was instead of having a group of rich assholes controlling everyone, you instead had a different group of not rich assholes controlling everyone, who thengot rich from it. And nothing changed.
I think, before we go around killing everyone, we need a plan. We need to figure out why humans are so quick to all clump up as one submissive blob, who follows the will of whoever claims to have power.
Instead of 1 president, or 1 dictator, I think we should instead have a panel of 1 million people. Tens of thousands of people from every state. Anyone can apply, and if need be, your individual county can run sn election if you're not running unopposed.
This I think would cut down tremendously on corruption in our government. Because a company couldn't just bribe 1 president. They'd need to bribe 1 million people.
And the comittee would always represent the people, because they ARE the people. Most people would know at least 1 committee member in their neighborhood.
Wealth cap or bust. No one should ever be able to make 1 billion. I think there should be forced divestments after 1 bil and you're barred from the stock market for 5 years. Plusāš», if you use any money to build anything whether it be a building or a business, said billionaire is not allowed to earn more than a total of 1 million/yr.
That sounds like a cat and mouse game. You make a rule that person A can't be on the stock market for 5 years. This does two things. First, it causes rich people to find some loophole or exploit.
And second, it just disincentivizes them from using the stock market at all, in favor of some unregulated form of making money. Like crypto.
Now you could say "Well then we'll place caps on how much you can trsnsfer crypto over to american currency".
And now you're in a cat and mouse game. Because now they just need to convert it to some foreign currency. Then convert the foreign currency to American currency.
See? Cat and mouse.
See, this idea thread is putting up fences to seperate the corrupt from illicit gains. You build a fence, they bring a ladder. You build a bigger fence, they bring a bigger ladder. You build a wall, they install a window. The incentive is always there to overcome the barrier.
Instead, we should be finding ways to make bringing a bigger ladder cost more than the gains. Rewrite the whole system so that all people benefit before the greedy have a chance to hoard it all.
Regulate every system. Regulate every persons finances. If they cheat the system, make them pay twice the gains they got. Then distribute those fines to fund education and poor neighborhoods.
Suddenly you don't need to worry about how big their ladder is, because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Oh and are you going to hard code these numbers into the law? Because rich people would respond by deflating the currency to the point where the average person makes 10 cents a day and a millionaire is inflation-equivalent to a billionaire today.
Or theyāll split a 10 billion dollar company between 20 of their closest friends and family, 500 million each, to stay under the cap.
Or a thousand other loopholes people will use. Take a company private and just declare it at worth only a million.
This only sounds good to people who are ignorant of both economics and history. Wealth caps, rent control, fixed prices, etc all sound nice until you take a minute to learn about the side effects. These sorts of policies aren't knew, but they don't work which is why they haven't stuck around.
The majority of people donāt like to lead. Itās simply easier and more comfortable to follow. Less conflict. Less confrontation. Less stress.
Leading requires initiative, the capacity to be confrontational, to step outside the box. Itās rather opposite of what is known as the bandwagon effect. Most people cannot do any of that without feeling extremely self conscious or anxious. Or, without being obnoxious and off-putting. You not only have to be able to function separate, you have to do it without annoying the fuck out of those around you.
Effective leadership also requires the capacity for some degree of speed. Some problems cannot wait for debate due to safety.
The bandwagon effect is a fun bit of study. Whatās even better is the majority of people believe it doesnāt hold sway over them when the data shows that it absolutely does, something like 70-80%. Itās why, in part, so much money is thrown at AI and bots on social media, especially pre elections.
The French Revolution was succesful. What the king & nobles did before that was much, much worse.
It just wasn't a socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie won.
It also didn't happen just like that, it took 10 years - Wikipedia calls it "a period of political and societal change". I think it's fair to say it wasn't completely unplanned.
No, my point was the French revolution wasn't exactly a success because it was followed by two other revolutions in 1830 and 1848 that also aimed at overthrowing the monarchy.
There needs to be a little killing first, to set the tone. I like your ideas, but there is no way in this world or any other that the rich assholes would allow you to assemble a committee like that. They would literally carpet bomb it before allowing it.
Humanity actually successfully implemented a decentralized egalitarian socialist society without dictatorships in 1936 Spain, which bore out that Anarchist political theory is the most viable long-term solution we have to achieving freedom for all while also ensuring everyone is able to live a fulfilling life by providing free housing, food, transportation and healthcare.
The American Weather Service provided weather updates for free, but a company came along and just started copying what the weather service posted ... then sued the Weather Service for publicly posting the weather because the government is not allowed to provide a service for free that a company can charge for.
That's exactly right, and it's clearly why they intentionally decided to let the businesses have guns and gave them all the other rights in the constitution, knowing they would someday be declared to be actual "people" by a series of what must be the stupidest and most destructive legal precedents ever set in the history of humanity.
Therefore the goverment only ever really pulls small businesses and normal people by the balls, while the big businesses and uber rich (money heavyweights) get to pull the government by the tongue. Sometimes even the balls as well.
Same thing happened in Germany where the DWD collects and publishes weather data. Wetter.de came along and sued them, forcing them to hide features in their app (developed and paid for by tax money) behind a paywall. That was later overturned, but I still refuse to use their site
I think other people can buy the blue checkmark for you on twitter, though my information may be faulty.
In any case, just cause he gave money to that ass wipe Elon doesn't mean that his analogy isn't valid, just a little "leopards ate my face" kinda deal.
Not to mention those same companies obsessed with AI are the ones who run the search engines. They made finding all those tutorials and other good resources harder. They ruin search results with ads and easily gamed algorithms that they stopped trying to improve. All that made people more willing to let the AI find the answer.
It all makes sense when you realize that AI isnāt the product, control is.
When everyone depends on cloud services, especially storage, because they canāt afford hard drives or RAM anymore. Do you think the average normie is going to āstand up for principles of privacy and freedom of computingā or are they gonna say āit is what it isā and buy a tablet with 8GB of RAM and an office suite in the cloud?
Do you think these companies are above scanning everyoneās stuff to find out who is against them? Who is developing some great new idea? Who dissents the government?
Do you think these companies are above editing all saved copies of a news article and replacing it with something AI generated that looks real enough to memory hole something? (Copies of things in the cloud are already de-duplicated)
They donāt want us to be able to point out their flaws anymore. They want us to be submissive to them.
Theyāve already broadcast their intentions to push cloud compute for home use. These data centers train AI - but chips are improving rapidly. Amazon and others have already stated they plan to use these for cloud compute services as they become obsolete for bleeding edge AI. Microsoft has a low local resource client to cloud version of Windows they are releasing. They want all compute to be subscription based and it will definitely lack any real privacy protections as long as they can keep corporate capture of congress.
I have indeed noticed Google (and Google-based search engines like Startpage) has got worse in the past months. Even DuckDuckGo is better now (which as a long time ddg user is wild)
I don't know if you use their Assistant, but you can limit it to specific sources. The first option after the entire web is the fediverse. They also have the small web, which just shows you things made by actual humans, not something trying to sell you something.
I pay for Metager and i do really recommend it. You pay a pittance per search while being free of the crap that infests the net. Kagi comes with it's own set of issues.
Thank you for sharing. I do now recall a couple of the items you addressed, and Iāll have to keep others in mind.
We canāt have anything niceā¦ google, digg, Reddit, github, Kagi, proton mail. āat one point in time these were good. The rot or trajectory of rot seems inevitable.
Iām not anti AI, but it doesnāt need to be in everything all the time. It shouldnāt obfuscate data sources. It shouldnāt be allowed to consume and gather everything breaking laws that would apply to any individual and ought to be enforced for any corporate entity.
Pointing an AI at a larger companyās documentation or feeding a local one a largish manual and using it to figure out how or why 2, 3, or 4 parts work together has been useful for me in the past. Again where I can then get to the data to learn for myself.
Letting the pattern recognization machine (AI) assess a logfile or 3 that are intertwined to help find issues has been helpful.
Injecting it into every internet search where I never asked is wasteful and stupid.
To be fair, Google has been fighting a war against SEO and spam basically since it was started.
I don't think they intentionally degraded their search engine. I think they just diverted resources away from fighting spam and SEO and instead dedicated those resources to AI stuff. Intentionally degrading their search results would require work. They'd have to convince their high-paid employees that for some reason they should make the results worse. But, just letting the stuff rot naturally as SEOs kept up their attacks, that's free.
There is a license that says that all derivatives must also be open source.
But also AI companies don't care about the law, they stole all their data, engage in insider trading, circular trading, and generating all manner of illegal content, they don't give a fuck. And the US government isn't doing anything to hold them accountable, infact the president is getting in on it.
Obviously fuck the capitalists and AI scammers. But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It's the wrong argument.
The answer obviously is to keep the actual source material and libraries and book archives open and just run open source AI models at home. You can run smaller versions on a solar powered PC no problem.
The issue with trying to make "AI is just stolen" happen is that it will make open source AI models illegal. AI companies would love that because they can afford to license and pay or work around or obscure or whatever. The "intellectual property" argument is always a disgusting capitalist one. Knowledge is either free or nothing is.
Every book ever published, every article anybody ever wrote, every comment anyone ever posted on a public internet is "consent" to read and learn from it.
I'm pro piracy as you can tell. The idea that something can be out there publicly on the internet but it's "not consent" to read is the intellectual property one. Look at how they try to gatekeep publicly owned scientific papers. Big AI is clearly hypocritical doing this, but corporations are just soulless, amoral programs executed by sentient humans.
But the RESULT of all that (e.g. deepseek) should belong to all people. And THAT is why these IP arguments by fuckAI are dangerous, because it is only a threat to open models. The answer is open source (or weight) AI models and with advances in computing to run them locally.
I said no such thing. Private is private. I'm saying there is no such thing as public information, information that you put on the public internet, meaning for the public to see, then being somehow not "free".
You can argue about copyright a little, I'm against it, but this has nothing to do with private messages or private information or data protection.
You're just arguing a strawman and trying to make the discussion about something else and an ad hominem calling me a troll.
Well yeah, they suck. I'm a fan of anna's archive.
But this doesn't change the fact that AI models will continue to improve, and the tactical question is if we give them munition to monopolize it using "intellectual property" rights. I want open source/weights models to use locally without paying some license to meta or reddit or some publisher cartel.
But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing.
It could be argued that these AIs are not actually learning but collecting and rearranging. That's still stealing in my book, especially if it happens on a massive industrial scale and by a megacorp instead of a person.
That is incorrect though, it follows the fallacy that it's just like a big database where all that (much larger) data is being copied and compressed into. It's called machine learning and denying the reality of how it works is just not useful.
Imagine you study as an engineer in whatever field, but now laws have been passed that you only licensed the knowledge from university and publishers. If you work you have to demonstrate who you learned it from and then pay royalty fees. Obviously that would be insane for humans, but I do forsee that they will try to do this for machine learning. Because of the argument you made.
So any open source / weight model you find and could run locally (like e.g. deepseek) will now be illegal because you can't prove where "dey tuerg dur dartae" from.
Thus all potential future gains from AI will be monopolized, while the costs socialized.
Welcome to the world of scientific publishing, long before AI. Except authors even have to pay for creating "content", and reviewers are expected to work for free. Yet article access is sold at astronomical prices.
Hey, remember that time Aaron Swartz used public APIs and perfectly legal aggregation of information to compile scientific journals in a data set outside the paywall. And he was arrested, prosecuted, and threatened with life in prison until he (allegedly) killed himself?
Then his original and highly lucrative pet project, Reddit, was mutated into a propaganda factory by the Epstein Class, cannibalized by the Investor Class, and gutted for AI slop by the Tech Sector?
I don't even know why they charge such high prices.
I don't work in academia but I am curious about thing and look up papers all the time.
I have never bought a single one at those ridiculous prices. But if they were reasonable like $1-$3 or something I probably would have an di imagine a lot of people would have.
You make more if 100 people buy a $1 item than 3 people buying a $30 item and the world benefits more.
Once you understand that AI is limited to the questioner's ability to properly elucidate what they need to know you'll have several more botched concrete stair resurfacings.
"- Or not, I am not a lawyer, what do I know." (This answer was generated by 10000 liters of fresh water and the energy equivalent of a quarter nuclear power plant)
I'm just waiting for some RTO'd workers to be told they're being mass laid off, and instead they just beat the manager to death. The irony of it only being possible because they were forced back into the office will be delicious.
20 years? More like somewhere between 30 to 40 if we count early WWW and the Gopher+Usenet that came before it. The GPL isn't quite that old, but the spirit behind it sure is. If we count early home-computer clubs back in the 70's (like the one that birthed the original Apple) or the ham-radio crowd that came before it, we can push into 50+ year territory, easy.
I hadn't considered AI being a paywall around the whole WWW but now that you mention it, it kind of looks that way. I've opined elsewhere that social media companies (e.g. Facebook) are building walled-gardens to keep eyeballs and attention-spans locked on their brand of reality. This would just be another avenue of attack in that strategy.
I remember frequenting MOOs and IRC, and downloading guitar tabs and chords off OLGA using clients in DOS back in the early 90s. Over 30 years ago. The Internet today is unrecognizable by comparison.
while the library itself is covered in a thick layer of slop as the librarian can't keep up anymore and the road signs pointing at the library are taken down
the library was run on donations and someone copied all the books and is selling a service that summarizes them on a lot right in front of it. you can still go around and give your donation inside but most people don't and the library is starting to fall apart. also the summaries kind of suck.
Only 20 years? My techguyforum screen name is damn near 30 years old at this point. (Don't go there. Site is ruined trash, now. ) I been giving info to help with shit since even before then. Internet has my fingerprints in it since the early 90's.
Finally someone said it. I honestly was wondering why no one was complaining about this... I've worked on some open source myself, licensed it GPL, and never intended for it to be used as training data.
Doesn't the GPL cover shit like this? There should be mass lawsuits hitting any AI that used open source software and didn't just specifically use BSD projects or something.
If you train an LLM on GPL code, it should be illegal to sell that LLM and use it commercially without revealing ALL THE SOURCE you used and the source to regenerate that model.
If you train an LLM on GPL code, it should be illegal to sell that LLM and use it commercially without revealing ALL THE SOURCE you used and the source to regenerate that model.
Also if that LLM is used to generate code - that code must also be GPL.
Yeah I mean they train ai on commercially copyrighted stuff like books that they straight up pirate so if that doesnāt stop them the open source community certainly wonāt
Doesnāt the GPL cover shit like this? There should be mass lawsuits
I hope it'll happen eventually.
Currently the USA (and that's where most of this shit comes from) is aggressively pro AI to the point of breaking the law with government support.
BTW what OP says has happened to Linux (at large) through Google/Android, too. The GPL hasn't stopped them but surely put some limits on their exploitation of FOSS
GPL absolutely should cover shit like this. Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work, therefore it must be licensed under GPL too (with limited fair use exceptions which shouldn't apply here). The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies.
The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies.
That'd be an uphill battle, even prominent OSS projects would fight against that unfortunately.
If the output of an LLM would found to be derivative of the input, that'd cause lots of problems for (e.g.) Linux, they love claude and have been funneling its output into the kernel for a while now, they'd rather not think about the licensing situation there.
I think their hope is if they pull it off they won't need money anymore, because they'll have destroyed the last lever of power the working class still have: the ability to withhold their labour. LLMs are trying to turn labour into just another tool (that you rent).
The worst part (maybe the second worst after all the slop poisoning the internet nowadays) is the proof that copyright law is only for us poors.
I download a copyrighted work and get a strongly worded letter from my ISP, or worse. They download all the copyrighted works; scrape the data from them; and charge for the ability to use said data to make derivative, non-transformative slop; and get fabulously wealthy from it.
I meant it more as a general thing - I should have said "we" instead.
They actually seem pretty chill about it here in New Zealand. My dad and I had one ISP notice in the early 2000s, but I've downloaded absolutely shitloads since and we haven't heard a peep.
Nowadays I tend to use Usenet anyway; the speed of even the healthiest torrents pales in comparison.
the speed of even the healthiest torrents pales in comparison
Again, private trackers. =) I can easily saturate the 2.5Gbps ethernet port on my work PC. Haven't tried pushing the full 10gig link yet, don't want to draw attention to myself since it's only supposed to be 2. It would have no problem though. Private torrents are seeded by seedboxes typically. And torrent longevity on private trackers beats usenet longevity, because some people never stop seeding.
Just further enshittification. Companies donāt make new things or new technologies anymore. They just find new ways to rent squat and extract fees. Theyāve stolen everyoneās work, manufactured a way to give it to you first without you seeing the authorās material, and told everyone to use this method to access information so they can charge for it.
The same people who abuse community resources (bulldoze public green spaces, kill rivers, pollute oceans, despoil lands, toxify the air, extinct animals etc.), do the exact same to information and the sources of it. They take for themselves and give nothing back. They cannot coexist with community or communal anything (which is why they hate community and socialism). They cannot give and will compulsively take. Their lives are why greed is considered a sin, insatiable and cruel, and it was wise to believe so.
Never share anything of value with the world. Do not allow them to know value exists or they will come for it. Giving freely and openly has empowered those who advantage themselves, by stealing every idea that is shared. They are the enemy, they are the threat, their psychology is a hazard to the community.
Share only with your communities and close those communities to these thieves. The only solution to private power is community power. We need to build back our communities and abandon everything possible that they control.
Justice is not only about what is fair, but also about the fear people have of suffering consequences, aka: Pain.
Being in jail is painful. It's a tiny room with no hygiene, cockroaches, the toilet is right there in the same room, isolation, unlikable neighbors, years or decades without Internet, a TV or PC...
The biggest lie the Jeffrey Epstein Class managed to pull off was to convince everyone that causing pain is an "absolute" wrong. It is not. Pain is what forces us to reflect and grow the fuck up to avoid committing the same mistakes. Those fuckers didn't have enough pain in their lives, because they lived it on Easy Mode. They were surrounded by yes-men and serfs constantly glazing them and laughing at their bad jokes. Now we are here.
We don't do shit to them because we are afraid of the pain the bodyguards, the cops or the law will lay upon us. But it should not be that way. They should be afraid of the people. Right now, they are laughing at us, doing heinous shit on purpose just to test our limit, and in the worst case scenario, normalize it. Young kids are already memeing Epstein, almost treating it like it's no big deal or just a joke, I seriously hope they don't carry that attitude forever, and realize that people like Epstein deserve to have their head opened to the truth as soon as you see them. Their bodyguards, I'd say are the worst people of all. The army, cops, bodyguards; they are people who openly and proudly decided to give their lives for a dude who rapes children and is not paying people what they're truly worth, a livable wage.
Nothing will get better until the rich fear for their lives.
They only know how to punish. Fear is not enough. We must obliterate them and everything they love, that those who come after will never make their mistake.
That's why we need to vote blue no matter who this November, to make sure they get what's coming to them!
TL;DR version: Those intrusive thoughts of "obliterating everything they love" can be tempting, but there are better alternatives. "Vote blue no matter what" could change to something better, more pro-working class, something fool-proof, something even the dumbest person can understand what it's about, because right now, I don't think I'm lying when I say that more than half of the entire world doesn't even know what "red vs blue" really means. They know it's politics, but, if you asked them what they think each means... Holy Toledo.
I have lost people to both democrat and republican presidents already, but I'd still choose a democrat, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that you still deserve so, so much better than what you currently have in that party.
Long version, for the chads with big dicks:
Those intrusive thoughts feel tempting because we keep seeing the top 1% happily sacrificing millions of innocent lives for their own pleasure, which is a reason I have a profound hate for bodyguards and anyone who works in the manufacture of weapons, bombs, bullets... Everything related to destruction. Whoever is giving the metal the shape, engineering the design, or even the janitor cleaning the office of those engineers so they can feel comfortably happy while designing the next drone that will blow the heads of some poor Muslim children... I have to say that "obliterating everything they love" is still not a good choice.
I think putting them in jail permanently is enough of a message. Forgiving their children and family members that can prove to be genuinely different is also an important message. Killing them would make us look too barbaric, which puts the reputation at risk, and therefor the trust, even if it happens 200+ years later. We'd just have to be consistent and keep hardening the law. It has to be done en masse too; a massive wave around the world of people taking the power and using it to put all these corrupt assholes in the worst cells possible. No Pablo Escobar/Ghislaine Maxwell vacation jail bullshit.
I don't think we will be able to stop the angriest people from passionately assassinating some of these assholes before we do that, but I won't stop them nor argue against them either, because I have personally lost family members in Lebanon and here in Mexico to these monsters, let alone all the innocent people throughout history, everywhere. I hate it. All that potential art and talent wasted just to please one boring psychopath asshole nobody likes, but is rich enough (because he exploited and killed others to enrich themselves) to feed us or not. We don't really need to keep suffering to create good art either as many think. We have enough History and drama to create an endless amount of content that'd keep us entertained and happy.
The voting blue no matter what, I hope it's innocent deep down, but so far, I think only a small number of democrats are actually decent people, imo. The majority are under AIPAC's command, they cannot even condemn the genocide in Gaza. They don't want to stop funding Israel either, so. Instead of "voting blue no matter what," I think the message should be more keen to something for the people, not some "blind support and loyalty to the party" nonsense.
"Vote for people, not parties."
"Loyalty to the people, not the party."
"People first, parties second."
"Represent us or lose us."
"Vote for the policies and actions, not because the candidate has a D next to their name."
I don't know, anything but a 1984-esque one like "vote blue no matter who." I wish people used one that focused on Humanity, on the people, not some dick-measuring contests.
It's just my fantasy, it won't happen, but whatever. I say that because I am sure the majority of the world, and I mean this: more than 60%, easily, of the entire planet, doesn't even know what "red vs blue" even really means, honestly. Like, they know it's about politics, but if you asked them what they think they mean... Oh, brother. A lot of people genuinely believe "communism and socialism are exactly the same thing and they both mean being lazy, being dirt poor all the time, and introducing homeless people in your home. Nothing else."
I am sure a lot of them are loyal to the red or blue party just because "it's their favorite color." Fuck that shit. Use a slogan that is fool-proof. One that even the dumbest motherfucker can understand what's it's about, and it's about Class Consciousness, about the Working Class, about the People, about being paid a livable wage, being paid what you're truly worth, that people deserve to see themselves at their full potential before they die, etc. Not some party, not some oligarchs, not Chuck Schumer and his stupid glasses. I have lost people to both democrat and republican presidents already, but I'd still choose a democrat, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that you still deserve so, so much better than what you currently have in that party.
Don't be a conformist; the Jeffrey Epstein Class worked so hard the past decades to turn us into conformists who are slowly normalizing this way of living. I hope we manage to flip that shit over and remove those broken psychopath weirdos.
I just wanna add for humor and to prove the point that I am not voting blue because blue here is the fashos. Because not everywhere is the US, and if that slogan escapes places where everyone expects US-defaultism, things could get very funny.
I literally said I'd still vote blue no matter who, even after both democrat and republican presidents have killed my family. I just added that you still deserve much better than that. I said I wish you focused more on the Working Class and the People, not a party. You are the fascist here for giving your loyalty to a party instead of Humanity.
I have lost people to both democrat and republican presidents already, but Iād still choose a democrat, donāt get me wrong on that. Itās just that you still deserve so, so much better than what you currently have in that party.
I am a Mexican, whose country currently loses 30,000+ people every year to Narcos using American guns. Happened during Bush, during Obama, during Trump, during Joe. Even before them. Reagan and Nixon (republicans) were the ones who forced us into this meaningless war. I have to focus on your country and politics, because you are the biggest influence we have, I do focus on mine too, but I can only find real change here.
You, in the other hand, you don't want to change. You still want me to blindly support whatever you say I should support. Fuck that. I will support socialist candidates like Zohran Mandami, Claire Valdez, Graham Platner, etc. If Kamala won, I wonder if this same pressure would exist, or we'd just be tolerating this miserable life, low wages, 30,000+ homicides in Mexico, 20,000+ in the USA, her supporting Israel, supporting her Mega Donors first before the people, etc. for another decade or so. At least Trump completely removed the mask and is forcing everyone to lock in and change for good now. He also revealed so many leftists like you who are still high on American Exceptionalism. If you're like that, I want to let you know that to me, you are no different from a MAGA. You still think Muslims are genetically violent, you think Mexicans are genetically violent, and that the USA should stay being the "World Police," meddling in international affairs to "fix them themselves." You still think you are the heroes, but no. You are literally terrorists. The USA is worse than HAMAS. You have killed over 30,000 mexicans with your influence and guns for decades. That's just Mexico. You exploit Africans and other Latin American countries the same way. They are suffering SO MUCH, and it is all thanks to lazy people like you who care more about their feelings than others'.
You have no empathy for implying I should be enthusiastic about supporting those fucking monsters. And also saying "it's my fault all this bad shit is happening now, for not voting blue no matter what," kiss my ass. You just want us to be compliant to the Jeffrey Epstein Class. I want it to be destroyed once and for all.
These people are delusional for thinking that family members of Epstein class should be forgiven, if you think Epstein class will let any guilt free people high up in any organization with considerable political power then you must be raving. They both are in it together, some new party must be formed, even then you can't be sure if the new party is compromised, but that's a start.
I mean, they're saying you're replaceable, but that's just a front for layoffs. Executive leadership doesn't care about having a functioning organization. They can easily find a job somewhere else once they demonstrate short term profits, even if it's at the expense of the company's long-term health
The only true answer to genai is to make all models created by skimming the commons, mandatory open weight and open sourced. If you try to buff copyrights to defeat genai, it's going to boomerang right back in your face
Welcome to the rodeo guy who is just now becoming aware of the system of oppression we call capitalism but is a lot more like feudalism with racialized and gendered castes that we all live under.
This is not new for companies to make money on the internet using the work and information others made without compensation for the community
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs, it's just that the price is different, you pay with your attention spans instead of money
I'm pretty sure that we'll have freely accessible LLMs with ads baked in a way you can't even see them at first glance (if they aren't doing it already)
What's new with LLMs is that the information source is hidden, no credit is attributed for people that contribute to the community anymore
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs
These examples had very obvious attribution and were an easy path to you. AI on the other hand serves as the source of truth in almost all scenarios. I consider myself a savvy user and even then I find myself never actually clicking on the cited sites - just looking at their titles, most people don't even bother with that.
Indeed, the courts have shockingly given a pass to torrenting down unauthorized copies to the LLM companies, versus how they destroyed some lives of private individuals for similar behavior...
Fun fact, recently had an argument with someone defending the favorable tax situation for the ultra wealthy.
Their argument was that billionaires did not have as much "real money" as middle class people so of course the middle class people should pay more in taxes...
Relevant to nothing, but just thinking of favorable billionaire treatment right now triggers that thought..
I've seen this argument in one form or another for years, and my response has never changed:
Either information on the internet is free for everyone, or it isn't.
You don't get to publish information for the public to access and then turn around and say that some people are allowed to use it while others are not, especially if the distinction is based on whether someone might make money from it.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim information should be freely available and then try to restrict who can benefit from it.
Pick one. Either the information is free, or it isn't.
LLMs are absolutely trained on FOSS software, including GPL'd stuff. Accelerating software development is also a large part of how they are making money. I believe training on GPL'd software and then charging for access is copyright infringement, but it doesn't really matter because entities supposed to be enforcing copyright are paid for by the same billionaires who run the AI companies, so literally nothing will happen.
Copyright protects the expression itself, not the ideas, facts, patterns, grammar, writing styles, or knowledge learned from that expression. Humans learn from copyrighted books, articles, movies, and music every day. Nobody claims that someone who read 10,000 copyrighted novels is committing copyright infringement every time they sit down and write a new story.
That's the part I keep seeing people ignore.
If learning from copyrighted material is infringement, then every author, journalist, musician, engineer, and artist on the planet is infringing copyright because they all learned their craft from copyrighted works created by other people.
The real question is whether an AI is reproducing copyrighted content, not whether it learned from copyrighted content. Those are two completely different issues.
You don't get to argue that learning is legal when humans do it and suddenly becomes theft when a machine does it. Either learning from publicly available information is allowed, or it isn't. The standard cannot magically change because you dislike the technology.
Copyright protects the expression itself, not the ideas, facts, patterns, grammar, writing styles, or knowledge learned from that expression.
Copyright absolutely does protect "ideas, patterns, grammar, writing styles". It does not cover material facts, but this is beside the point here.
Nobody claims that someone who read 10,000 copyrighted novels is committing copyright infringement every time they sit down and write a new story.
Actually, if they take certain elements from other works it often can be considered copyright infringement, but this is also beside the point.
You donāt get to argue that learning is legal when humans do it and suddenly becomes theft when a machine does it. Either learning from publicly available information is allowed, or it isnāt. The standard cannot magically change because you dislike the technology.
This is the crux of the issue. The LLM is not a person from a legal perspective, therefore it cannot "learn". What is happening is that a legal person - a company - is consuming a bunch of copyrighted material and transforming it into a bunch of data to be interpreted by a computer program. This makes that data definitionally a derivative work made by the company. Sure, the transformation process is probably "creative" enough for the company to be able to claim copyright on the resulting weights, as long as that company gains explicit or implicit approval from all the copyright holders of the works they used to create the weights. Legally speaking, this is no different from you pirating a bunch of movies and making a compilation of the funniest moments - see how the legal system would react to you doing that.
Of course, I find the entire concept of modern copyright system to be an awful idea whose entire purpose is impeding the human creativity for the purposes of monetization.
But if we read the law as it is - the AI companies are absolutely doing copyright infringement by training their models on GPL code and not releasing the weights under a GPL-compatible license.
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy and distribute a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.
The explanation above comes from the Big Law Dictionary app, which is available on the Google Play Store for Android.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. If ideas could be copyrighted, it would be absurd. I don't even know how that could realistically be enforced.
This is the problem with so many people talking out of their backsides on this platform. They don't know what these legal terms actually mean or how they function. They see something they don't like and immediately start making claims about it.
LLMs do a lot of things that deserve criticism. Copyright isn't necessarily one of them.
If a company developing or operating an LLM is committing copyright infringement, then it should be prosecuted. If it has violated the law and hasn't been held accountable, that is a separate issue that should be remedied. But that is a completely different argument from claiming that LLMs are inherently infringing copyright.
An LLM uses training data to generate novel responses. That means it produces new output rather than copying source material verbatim. Simply using publicly available information to learn patterns is not, by itself, copyright infringement. If a company unlawfully obtained private or copyrighted material, or reproduced protected works in a way that violates copyright law, then it has broken the law and should be prosecuted.
But the existence of an LLM, by itself, is not copyright infringement.
So, moving forward, this can go one of two ways: either you concede that you were incorrect, or you double down and make even more absurd claims. Either way, I don't know... I've had this argument so many times on this platform that it's ridiculous.
As of right now, there are multiple lawsuits against major LLM developers. In some of those cases, the courts have ruled that training on publicly available data can qualify as fair use.
At this point, not a single court has issued a final ruling in favor of a plaintiff holding that LLM training itself is copyright infringement.
I genuinely don't know what else I'm supposed to do to prove this to you people.
If a company unlawfully ... reproduced protected works in a way that violates copyright law, then it has broken the law and should be prosecuted.
Merely training an LLM on copyrighted material without holder's permission (and then distributing the weights or selling access to inference on those weights) is a violation of copyright law if it were to be applied consistently (ignoring the fair use argument, which I'll get back to). That is, if you applied any other computational process in this way, the result would be a derivative work and subject to approval by copyright holder(s). The reason it's "different" this time is that the people violating the law are richer than those who wrote the law in the first place, not because of any legal argument.
As of right now, there are multiple lawsuits against major LLM developers. In some of those cases, the courts have ruled that training on publicly available data can qualify as fair use.
If a court ruled that it's "fair use", that actually lends more credence to the idea that LLM weights are a derivative work - "fair use" is a defense for copyright infringement that only makes sense in this case if the new work is an unauthorized derivative of the original.
Whether it's actually fair use or not is another question. I can see the fair use argument for open-weight non-commercial models, not so much for commercial offerings - commercial LLMs seem to fail all 4 elements of fair use.
BTW, I'm not even necessarily anti-AI (at least the open-weight, local models). I use a local model in my job almost daily, and also I think it's mostly good that the entirety of FOSS corpus is available for download in a compressed and easily remixable form. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the legal system which applies its already unjust copyright law (and most other laws) only against poor people.
Using copyleft licenses for closed models is clearly against the spirit of the licenses if the users donāt have access to the source code that includes the original copyleft works. Even open weight models arenāt really the source code, and are more akin to a compiled binary. The source code is all the training data and code used to train the model such that anyone can build on it and train new models.
Iām not a lawyer and am not sure how well existing copyleft licenses like GPL or CC-SA would stand up in court to enforce this, but if they donāt, then stronger licenses that explicitly cover works being used as training data need to become more common.
Iāve seen the argument that the models are just learning from the data in the same way a human would. Thatās nonsense. Itās not like theyāre creating a sentient being with its own agency that can tell them to fuck off if it wants. These companies are running a software pipeline against copyrighted IP to convert it into a derivative work that is now supposedly wholly owned by said company, but the reality is that itās collectively owned by everyone who contributed to the copyleft training data.
The "you are replaceable" thing is older than everyone currently alive. It hasn't been invented by the AI tech bros.
Also, the library is still out there. You still can ignore the rent-seeking middle men and use it directly with your own natural neural network.
Also, the library is still out there. You still can ignore the rent-seeking middle men and use it directly with your own natural neural network.
ā¦but you have to jump between a billion hoops to get there because now itās all buried between AI results and SEO crap.
Assuming itās even still there and accessible in the same way, if its site was enshittified (did someone say Reddit?) you might need to go through additional hoops even after you actually find it.
Reddit is a bad example because it's still readable without an account and almost uncensored outside politics. You can also still query Reddit explicitly reasonably fine by adding "Reddit" to your search in DuckDuckGo or Google.
Reddit's enshittification is in the optional buyable reactions (which make posts and comments way more visible than voting is able to), their automated moderation, and making automated moderation for sub mods harder.
Using it as a library is what didn't get enshittified.
That got enshittified too, anything marked as NSFW is not accessible without an account right now.
And from personal experience (might be just me being dumb though), old Reddit doesnāt work anymore if youāre not logged in, so youāre stuck with the new interface which auto-translates stuff and makes comment chains impossible to browse through on mobile.
The sort-of not really but they will tell that it is one to the government for NSFW content is just ass covering. Can't really blame them for not wanting their business getting closed by some lunatics who happen to be in power.
Auto-translation is a feature the author can use (but I do have an extension for translating marked text too, because translation is actually a pretty useful feature to have in general).
For me on desktop, the UI is okay. But yeah, it probably sucks on mobile. UI generally tends to suck on mobile.
I never had a license for having a big dick til they made it a requirement requestement that make it do what it as it do be it for cuz that's what it be.
We had predictive text. We had neural networks. We had both for more than few decades. Someone just decides "what if predictive text was built on neural network?" and it worked much better than old solution. In fact old solution worked pretty much like one-layer neural network.
TechBros literally took something we already had, made it more expensive and sold it to investors.
ehh not exactly. the current wave within ai was started in 2017 with the google paper "attention is all you need", which introduced the transformer architecture (the T in GPT). deep neural networks were still used for NLP before this, it was just LSTMs instead of transformers, which had various limitations
Search engines did that decades ago. AI presents it's results as fact without the ability to provide a source, it's an aggressively unfriendly interface.
Oh, they provide sources. At least, some of them do. It's just that the sources don't always back them up. It's going to gin up sources whether it's correct or not, because that's what it's programmed to do.
I haven't used the latest models, I am really fucking over it, but yeah when I would ask for sources on why the model provided the answer it did every time they would jist hallucinate a web address.
It's not the same. The ability to converse about a topic is pretty dope. Compared to ring to find relevant information about a very unique case for instance.
So, I'm a little lost. You think AI isn't useful because it isn't generating profits? Or you think it's not useful because of how it distills information and presents it in a chat interface (which was the only point I made)?
I'm actually a guy who did this. 50k reputation on stack overflow, several tech blogs, reddit contributions and you know what? I love that LLMs are "stealing" my content. Most of us just do it for the love of the game and genuine belief that free information is good for the society. The only down side is not getting attribution credit which sucks but nothing compared to the benefits we all get.
Also no one's capable of creating this is being replaced by an LLM. Let's be clear here. If you are capable of educating complex tech subjects you are already in the top 10% of the market.
Why corporate? Open source LLMs also use this data (even more so) and imo will eventually win over current market loss leaders.
If you truly believe information should be free and accessible to all then LLMs - which are just intelligent interface to our collective compressed information - are a good thing.
Being told and being replace is kinda different. At least being replace mean the replacement already happened, being told mean you have to deal with the looming threat of being replaced and constantly bugged by the stupidity of your employer.
Yeah the sword of damocles is real here but I think a lot of capable people are under selling themselves and could easily find fit when let go. The market should grow due to new tooling so if anything senior experience is a major boon in an expanding market.
The real risk is allowing billionaires to monopolize the market and seems like people are conflating this with LLMs as a technology. It's ludites all over again.
222 Comments
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 235 pts · 42d
Coincidentally, OOP just explained academic publishing to a T.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 55 pts · 42d
A parasite can take different shapes but only one form.
dumnezero@piefed.social · 3 pts · 41d
clenches fist
ferrule@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 42d
Sort of. Unless you go to a private university taxes go to the public schools to fun facilities and wages for the educators. While you may pay tuition, the overall cost of that education and the services needed for one to do research doesn't come wholely out of your pocket.
Now I agree you should be compensated more, as someone who tried to get published academically and has filed patents I can see why there is a split of compensation.
Deckname@feddit.org · 21 pts · 42d
Wdym? Scientists usually don't get paid to publish. The person you replied to, probably meant academic publishing as in:
Where is the split of compensation? For patents there is, but for academic publishing usually not.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 41d
You also forgot how scientist is required to publish regularly to keep their job, and to find new jobs. So this process is far from optional.
That aside, that was an excellent write up. You should publish that to a journal or something. š
Deckname@feddit.org · 4 pts · 41d
Thanks for the peer review!
cecilkorik@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 41d
I feel very educated from having all read this.
idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 42d
You are missing the point, it's not about education, but publishing. Read about Elsevier, and how Aaron Swartz died
corbindallas@fedinsfw.app · 138 pts · 42d
I think this is the story of humanity. It ain't getting better until we massacre the inhumanly rich, eat Thier families while the world watches, and force evil socialism on shared intellectual property
Follow me for more bad advice
abbadon420@sh.itjust.works · 64 pts · 42d
I don't know the difference between bad advice and good advice anymore
TheparishofChigwell@sh.itjust.works · 27 pts · 42d
Styrofoam and diesel are great for toppling governments. Douse the rich!
teft@piefed.social · 4 pts · 41d
Donāt use diesel. Itās hard to ignite with just a lighter. Use gasoline and styrofoam for your homemade bonfire starter. Itāll ignite much easier and stick to all those logs that tend to hoardā¦leaves.
TheparishofChigwell@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 41d
Good advice. We are basically giving them their plastics and petrochemicals back at no cost.
... To the logs
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
Be careful with gasoline. It's flammable enough for the flame to climb up the spout. Ask me how i know, kids are dumb... (i.e. me circa age 10)
Siethron@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 41d
Don't actually eat anyone, cannabalism is likely to lead to prion folding diseases. Which is a terrible way to die.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 41d
I donāt care at this point. Iām getting my bite.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 42d
See, here's the thing. Everybody loves to point at the guilitine, and the French Revolution. They love to say "Lets do what they did!"
Here's the problem. Nobody talks about what came next.
Because what happened was, you had one group of rich assholes who controlled everything, and treated everybody else like shit. So the French chopped off their heads, and got rid of these rich assholes.
And what happened next? Well, a lot of infighting, but the end result was instead of having a group of rich assholes controlling everyone, you instead had a different group of not rich assholes controlling everyone, who thengot rich from it. And nothing changed.
I think, before we go around killing everyone, we need a plan. We need to figure out why humans are so quick to all clump up as one submissive blob, who follows the will of whoever claims to have power.
Instead of 1 president, or 1 dictator, I think we should instead have a panel of 1 million people. Tens of thousands of people from every state. Anyone can apply, and if need be, your individual county can run sn election if you're not running unopposed.
This I think would cut down tremendously on corruption in our government. Because a company couldn't just bribe 1 president. They'd need to bribe 1 million people.
And the comittee would always represent the people, because they ARE the people. Most people would know at least 1 committee member in their neighborhood.
THEN you can kill all the rich assholes.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 42d
Wealth cap or bust. No one should ever be able to make 1 billion. I think there should be forced divestments after 1 bil and you're barred from the stock market for 5 years. Plusāš», if you use any money to build anything whether it be a building or a business, said billionaire is not allowed to earn more than a total of 1 million/yr.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 42d
That sounds like a cat and mouse game. You make a rule that person A can't be on the stock market for 5 years. This does two things. First, it causes rich people to find some loophole or exploit.
And second, it just disincentivizes them from using the stock market at all, in favor of some unregulated form of making money. Like crypto.
Now you could say "Well then we'll place caps on how much you can trsnsfer crypto over to american currency".
And now you're in a cat and mouse game. Because now they just need to convert it to some foreign currency. Then convert the foreign currency to American currency.
See? Cat and mouse.
See, this idea thread is putting up fences to seperate the corrupt from illicit gains. You build a fence, they bring a ladder. You build a bigger fence, they bring a bigger ladder. You build a wall, they install a window. The incentive is always there to overcome the barrier.
Instead, we should be finding ways to make bringing a bigger ladder cost more than the gains. Rewrite the whole system so that all people benefit before the greedy have a chance to hoard it all.
Regulate every system. Regulate every persons finances. If they cheat the system, make them pay twice the gains they got. Then distribute those fines to fund education and poor neighborhoods.
Suddenly you don't need to worry about how big their ladder is, because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
What do you mean by forced divestments?
Oh and are you going to hard code these numbers into the law? Because rich people would respond by deflating the currency to the point where the average person makes 10 cents a day and a millionaire is inflation-equivalent to a billionaire today.
Or theyāll split a 10 billion dollar company between 20 of their closest friends and family, 500 million each, to stay under the cap.
Or a thousand other loopholes people will use. Take a company private and just declare it at worth only a million.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
Selling off half their stocks or Ā¼ of their their majority share to lower their stake in their own businesses so their wealth is stifled.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 42d
Selling it to who though? And who gets the money from the sale? Taxes? But rich people already control the governmentā¦
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
This only sounds good to people who are ignorant of both economics and history. Wealth caps, rent control, fixed prices, etc all sound nice until you take a minute to learn about the side effects. These sorts of policies aren't knew, but they don't work which is why they haven't stuck around.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
At this point in time just blow out everyone's bank accounts and start over again.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
But exactly do you think this will accomplish?
Zephorah@discuss.online · 5 pts · 42d
The majority of people donāt like to lead. Itās simply easier and more comfortable to follow. Less conflict. Less confrontation. Less stress.
Leading requires initiative, the capacity to be confrontational, to step outside the box. Itās rather opposite of what is known as the bandwagon effect. Most people cannot do any of that without feeling extremely self conscious or anxious. Or, without being obnoxious and off-putting. You not only have to be able to function separate, you have to do it without annoying the fuck out of those around you.
Effective leadership also requires the capacity for some degree of speed. Some problems cannot wait for debate due to safety.
The bandwagon effect is a fun bit of study. Whatās even better is the majority of people believe it doesnāt hold sway over them when the data shows that it absolutely does, something like 70-80%. Itās why, in part, so much money is thrown at AI and bots on social media, especially pre elections.
This appears to be a long but solid definition of it, with some easy bullet points: https://www.researchprospect.com/what-is-the-bandwagon-effect/
Thereās also a reverse bandwagon effect, for, you know, the cool people.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 42d
The French Revolution was succesful. What the king & nobles did before that was much, much worse.
It just wasn't a socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie won.
It also didn't happen just like that, it took 10 years - Wikipedia calls it "a period of political and societal change". I think it's fair to say it wasn't completely unplanned.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 42d
It led directly to Napoleon conquering Europe and crowning himself Emperor of France...
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 41d
Yeah, so?
If you're saying "not good enough", I repeat: much better than the Ancien rƩgime was.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
No, my point was the French revolution wasn't exactly a success because it was followed by two other revolutions in 1830 and 1848 that also aimed at overthrowing the monarchy.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 40d
If that's your measure of success good luck ever getting succesful in your life.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 42d
There needs to be a little killing first, to set the tone. I like your ideas, but there is no way in this world or any other that the rich assholes would allow you to assemble a committee like that. They would literally carpet bomb it before allowing it.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 41d
Most of the monarchies and aristocrats in Europe fell / lost all real power / reformed themselves to avoid losing their heads?
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 41d
Humanity actually successfully implemented a decentralized egalitarian socialist society without dictatorships in 1936 Spain, which bore out that Anarchist political theory is the most viable long-term solution we have to achieving freedom for all while also ensuring everyone is able to live a fulfilling life by providing free housing, food, transportation and healthcare.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
because people like when decisions are made for them, and they don't have to think to make those decisions for themselves.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 41d
It's like you invented democracy with extra sauce ššš»šš»šš»
DioramaOfShit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 42d
Dibs on ribs
corbindallas@fedinsfw.app · 1 pts · 42d
Rfk has peen dibs
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 107 pts · 42d
That is how capitalism works.
The American Weather Service provided weather updates for free, but a company came along and just started copying what the weather service posted ... then sued the Weather Service for publicly posting the weather because the government is not allowed to provide a service for free that a company can charge for.
Insanity.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 42d
Government issues the business licenses. Seems like someone needs to be reminded who has who by the balls.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 42d
In case anyone didn't know the answer is business as in business has the government by the balls.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 41d
As intended by the founding fathers, of course
cecilkorik@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 41d
That's exactly right, and it's clearly why they intentionally decided to let the businesses have guns and gave them all the other rights in the constitution, knowing they would someday be declared to be actual "people" by a series of what must be the stupidest and most destructive legal precedents ever set in the history of humanity.
unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 41d
Yup. Government has businesses by the balls.
But corruption exists.
Therefore the goverment only ever really pulls small businesses and normal people by the balls, while the big businesses and uber rich (money heavyweights) get to pull the government by the tongue. Sometimes even the balls as well.
Just as Supply Side Jesus intended.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 41d
I don't think that they do anymore. Not in the US.
The opposite is true here.
Jaysyn@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
State governments issue business licenses. This is how we will kill Citizen's United.
Hawaii first, Montana next.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
this person gets it
MaggiWuerze@feddit.org · 16 pts · 41d
Same thing happened in Germany where the DWD collects and publishes weather data. Wetter.de came along and sued them, forcing them to hide features in their app (developed and paid for by tax money) behind a paywall. That was later overturned, but I still refuse to use their site
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 41d
Yes! Exact same here. Its so dumb it sounds made up. A random company comes along and just gets to sell what was once free.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 41d
MalikMuaddibSoong@startrek.website · 8 pts · 41d
I am beyond mildly infuriated by such an idiotic stance, but it tracks with what Iāve seen.
RIP postal service youāre next.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 79 pts · 42d
...Seriously?
This guy has no leg to stand on; that's the Mildly Infuriating part.
EDIT: Am I the only one on Lemmy who discounts the whole post the moment I see a blue checkmark?
Especially this one. It's so hypocritical it hurts.
Famko@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 42d
I think other people can buy the blue checkmark for you on twitter, though my information may be faulty.
In any case, just cause he gave money to that ass wipe Elon doesn't mean that his analogy isn't valid, just a little "leopards ate my face" kinda deal.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 42d
Well, he tweets many times a day, many posts like this:
...Seems like a "Tech Bro" type to me. He's just engagement farming; I don't care what he says, there nothing valid about that.
In fact, I'd wager some of those posts are automated.
justaman123@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 42d
I'm kind of with you on this, but even broken clocks
athatet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 41d
Yeah but I donāt pay attention to broken clocks. I throw them out and replace them with working ones.
Famko@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 41d
Yeah okay, fair enough, he looks like a moron.
Donkter@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
I think twitter also might still give blue check marks to "important" people it's just available for anyone to buy now
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 42d
Don't discount the message though. After all we're interacting with a screenshot of a tweet. It doesn't make me a fan of this guy.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 41d
The messenger matters.
Would you care about anything I was saying if I was a bot?
Or a Musk/Theil bootlicker?
Especially on this topic. Nodding heads about the loss of the internet to engagement chum on Twitter is the opposite of poetic.
Brahvim@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 42d
Steal the idea. Paraphrase it and screenshot it as your own! Victorii /s
...Also how capitalism works, according to another post here.
helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 41d
I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned how far off the 20 year estimate is.
vaionko@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 41d
Remember when the "verified" checkmark meant you were verified to be who you claim to be? I do
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 42d
SaltySalamander@fedia.io · -5 pts · 42d
You either do it, or someone else will do it and start impersonating you. People with any kind of public/online presence sorta have to unfortunately.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 41d
they can still impersonate you. the checkmark has lost its meaning when everybody has it.
usernametbd@lemmy.zip · 65 pts · 42d
Not to mention those same companies obsessed with AI are the ones who run the search engines. They made finding all those tutorials and other good resources harder. They ruin search results with ads and easily gamed algorithms that they stopped trying to improve. All that made people more willing to let the AI find the answer.
4am@lemmy.zip · 29 pts · 42d
It all makes sense when you realize that AI isnāt the product, control is.
When everyone depends on cloud services, especially storage, because they canāt afford hard drives or RAM anymore. Do you think the average normie is going to āstand up for principles of privacy and freedom of computingā or are they gonna say āit is what it isā and buy a tablet with 8GB of RAM and an office suite in the cloud?
Do you think these companies are above scanning everyoneās stuff to find out who is against them? Who is developing some great new idea? Who dissents the government?
Do you think these companies are above editing all saved copies of a news article and replacing it with something AI generated that looks real enough to memory hole something? (Copies of things in the cloud are already de-duplicated)
They donāt want us to be able to point out their flaws anymore. They want us to be submissive to them.
usernametbd@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 42d
Theyāve already broadcast their intentions to push cloud compute for home use. These data centers train AI - but chips are improving rapidly. Amazon and others have already stated they plan to use these for cloud compute services as they become obsolete for bleeding edge AI. Microsoft has a low local resource client to cloud version of Windows they are releasing. They want all compute to be subscription based and it will definitely lack any real privacy protections as long as they can keep corporate capture of congress.
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 42d
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 41d
Where have you been the last 20 years?
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
plutopos@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 42d
I have indeed noticed Google (and Google-based search engines like Startpage) has got worse in the past months. Even DuckDuckGo is better now (which as a long time ddg user is wild)
Chronographs@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 42d
Honestly ddg has also gotten worse (as itās bing in a condom), itās just that Google has shit itself even harder
NOPper@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 42d
Kagi is a paid service and feels weird to pay for a search engine, but things have felt so much better since I tried them out months ago.
TheMadCodger@piefed.social · 8 pts · 42d
I don't know if you use their Assistant, but you can limit it to specific sources. The first option after the entire web is the fediverse. They also have the small web, which just shows you things made by actual humans, not something trying to sell you something.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 42d
I pay for Metager and i do really recommend it. You pay a pittance per search while being free of the crap that infests the net. Kagi comes with it's own set of issues.
confusedwiseman@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 42d
Iāll look into Metager as this is the first Iāve heard of it.
What set of issues do you see with Kagi? Itās the best Iāve encountered as of late, but if thereās more I should consider; Iād like to learn.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 42d
I mainly find their CEO problematic, and their focus on AI does not bode well for the future.
confusedwiseman@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 41d
Thank you for sharing. I do now recall a couple of the items you addressed, and Iāll have to keep others in mind.
We canāt have anything niceā¦ google, digg, Reddit, github, Kagi, proton mail. āat one point in time these were good. The rot or trajectory of rot seems inevitable.
Iām not anti AI, but it doesnāt need to be in everything all the time. It shouldnāt obfuscate data sources. It shouldnāt be allowed to consume and gather everything breaking laws that would apply to any individual and ought to be enforced for any corporate entity.
Pointing an AI at a larger companyās documentation or feeding a local one a largish manual and using it to figure out how or why 2, 3, or 4 parts work together has been useful for me in the past. Again where I can then get to the data to learn for myself.
Letting the pattern recognization machine (AI) assess a logfile or 3 that are intertwined to help find issues has been helpful.
Injecting it into every internet search where I never asked is wasteful and stupid.
k0e3@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 42d
I started noticing ddg search with the "" operator is wonky. Also ecosia seems to have a lot of sponsored results?
lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 42d
I'm at a point where I gladly pay for my search engine just to get good results.
One could argue we were always paying, with our data. But now we get less in return.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 42d
To be fair, Google has been fighting a war against SEO and spam basically since it was started.
I don't think they intentionally degraded their search engine. I think they just diverted resources away from fighting spam and SEO and instead dedicated those resources to AI stuff. Intentionally degrading their search results would require work. They'd have to convince their high-paid employees that for some reason they should make the results worse. But, just letting the stuff rot naturally as SEOs kept up their attacks, that's free.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 63 pts · 42d
There is a license that says that all derivatives must also be open source.
But also AI companies don't care about the law, they stole all their data, engage in insider trading, circular trading, and generating all manner of illegal content, they don't give a fuck. And the US government isn't doing anything to hold them accountable, infact the president is getting in on it.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 42d
isn't doing anything
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 42d
Yeah that's what I meant
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 42d
You probably meant "nothing" instead of "anything"?
Yes, all this is very much the product of the current US admin.
brendansimms@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 41d
Obviously fuck the capitalists and AI scammers. But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It's the wrong argument.
The answer obviously is to keep the actual source material and libraries and book archives open and just run open source AI models at home. You can run smaller versions on a solar powered PC no problem.
The issue with trying to make "AI is just stolen" happen is that it will make open source AI models illegal. AI companies would love that because they can afford to license and pay or work around or obscure or whatever. The "intellectual property" argument is always a disgusting capitalist one. Knowledge is either free or nothing is.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 41d
Library implies consent that was not there and access to the public that was not there.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 40d
Every book ever published, every article anybody ever wrote, every comment anyone ever posted on a public internet is "consent" to read and learn from it.
I'm pro piracy as you can tell. The idea that something can be out there publicly on the internet but it's "not consent" to read is the intellectual property one. Look at how they try to gatekeep publicly owned scientific papers. Big AI is clearly hypocritical doing this, but corporations are just soulless, amoral programs executed by sentient humans.
But the RESULT of all that (e.g. deepseek) should belong to all people. And THAT is why these IP arguments by fuckAI are dangerous, because it is only a threat to open models. The answer is open source (or weight) AI models and with advances in computing to run them locally.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 40d
Every gps ping your phone sells to ad companies? Every nanny cam that is connected to the cloud?
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 39d
Public information vs private information
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 39d
Are you a troll, you just said their is no such thing.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 38d
I said no such thing. Private is private. I'm saying there is no such thing as public information, information that you put on the public internet, meaning for the public to see, then being somehow not "free".
You can argue about copyright a little, I'm against it, but this has nothing to do with private messages or private information or data protection.
You're just arguing a strawman and trying to make the discussion about something else and an ad hominem calling me a troll.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 41d
Except these people are turning around and burningdown the libraries once they've read all the books.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 40d
Well yeah, they suck. I'm a fan of anna's archive.
But this doesn't change the fact that AI models will continue to improve, and the tactical question is if we give them munition to monopolize it using "intellectual property" rights. I want open source/weights models to use locally without paying some license to meta or reddit or some publisher cartel.
UpperBroccoli@feddit.org · 4 pts · 41d
It could be argued that these AIs are not actually learning but collecting and rearranging. That's still stealing in my book, especially if it happens on a massive industrial scale and by a megacorp instead of a person.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 40d
That is incorrect though, it follows the fallacy that it's just like a big database where all that (much larger) data is being copied and compressed into. It's called machine learning and denying the reality of how it works is just not useful.
Imagine you study as an engineer in whatever field, but now laws have been passed that you only licensed the knowledge from university and publishers. If you work you have to demonstrate who you learned it from and then pay royalty fees. Obviously that would be insane for humans, but I do forsee that they will try to do this for machine learning. Because of the argument you made.
So any open source / weight model you find and could run locally (like e.g. deepseek) will now be illegal because you can't prove where "dey tuerg dur dartae" from.
Thus all potential future gains from AI will be monopolized, while the costs socialized.
brendansimms@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 41d
Large amounts of data were pirated, which is apparently legal if you're training an AI. Source: Meta lawsuit
Folstar@lemmus.org · 1 pts · 41d
A powerful argument if one cannot tell the difference between a person and a product.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 41d
Welcome to the world of scientific publishing, long before AI. Except authors even have to pay for creating "content", and reviewers are expected to work for free. Yet article access is sold at astronomical prices.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 41d
Hey, remember that time Aaron Swartz used public APIs and perfectly legal aggregation of information to compile scientific journals in a data set outside the paywall. And he was arrested, prosecuted, and threatened with life in prison until he (allegedly) killed himself?
Then his original and highly lucrative pet project, Reddit, was mutated into a propaganda factory by the Epstein Class, cannibalized by the Investor Class, and gutted for AI slop by the Tech Sector?
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 41d
At least, academic papers give credits to the author... Or to the author's boss
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 41d
I don't even know why they charge such high prices.
I don't work in academia but I am curious about thing and look up papers all the time.
I have never bought a single one at those ridiculous prices. But if they were reasonable like $1-$3 or something I probably would have an di imagine a lot of people would have.
You make more if 100 people buy a $1 item than 3 people buying a $30 item and the world benefits more.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 41d
Because they can. It really is just a cartell. Especially institutions pay a fortune for bundled access.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 41d
Once you understand that AI is limited to the questioner's ability to properly elucidate what they need to know you'll have several more botched concrete stair resurfacings.
Thanks Gemini, you self-contradicting potato
Krudler@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 41d
Gemini: "yes, an important distinction - you have made the critical observation that I am useless!"
hakunawazo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 41d
"- Or not, I am not a lawyer, what do I know."
(This answer was generated by 10000 liters of fresh water and the energy equivalent of a quarter nuclear power plant)jtrek@startrek.website · 25 pts · 42d
I'm just waiting for some RTO'd workers to be told they're being mass laid off, and instead they just beat the manager to death. The irony of it only being possible because they were forced back into the office will be delicious.
QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
Have them kill the CEOs and Boards of Directors, and I will bring the popcorn.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 41d
I'm shocked it hasn't happened yet. It's kind of disheartening tbh
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 41d
20 years? More like somewhere between 30 to 40 if we count early WWW and the Gopher+Usenet that came before it. The GPL isn't quite that old, but the spirit behind it sure is. If we count early home-computer clubs back in the 70's (like the one that birthed the original Apple) or the ham-radio crowd that came before it, we can push into 50+ year territory, easy.
I hadn't considered AI being a paywall around the whole WWW but now that you mention it, it kind of looks that way. I've opined elsewhere that social media companies (e.g. Facebook) are building walled-gardens to keep eyeballs and attention-spans locked on their brand of reality. This would just be another avenue of attack in that strategy.
Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 41d
I remember frequenting MOOs and IRC, and downloading guitar tabs and chords off OLGA using clients in DOS back in the early 90s. Over 30 years ago. The Internet today is unrecognizable by comparison.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 42d
The library is still there. Admission is still free.
Flower@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 42d
while the library itself is covered in a thick layer of slop as the librarian can't keep up anymore and the road signs pointing at the library are taken down
grepe@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 42d
the library was run on donations and someone copied all the books and is selling a service that summarizes them on a lot right in front of it. you can still go around and give your donation inside but most people don't and the library is starting to fall apart. also the summaries kind of suck.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de · 22 pts · 42d
Only 20 years? My techguyforum screen name is damn near 30 years old at this point. (Don't go there. Site is ruined trash, now. ) I been giving info to help with shit since even before then. Internet has my fingerprints in it since the early 90's.
desmosthenes@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 42d
itās called a walled garden for a reason.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 19 pts · 42d
Finally someone said it. I honestly was wondering why no one was complaining about this... I've worked on some open source myself, licensed it GPL, and never intended for it to be used as training data.
Doesn't the GPL cover shit like this? There should be mass lawsuits hitting any AI that used open source software and didn't just specifically use BSD projects or something.
If you train an LLM on GPL code, it should be illegal to sell that LLM and use it commercially without revealing ALL THE SOURCE you used and the source to regenerate that model.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 42d
Also if that LLM is used to generate code - that code must also be GPL.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 5 pts · 42d
I'd love to see lawsuits force Microsoft and Nvidia and OpenAI to open source everything they had AI touch š
Chronographs@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 42d
Yeah I mean they train ai on commercially copyrighted stuff like books that they straight up pirate so if that doesnāt stop them the open source community certainly wonāt
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 42d
I hope it'll happen eventually.
Currently the USA (and that's where most of this shit comes from) is aggressively pro AI to the point of breaking the law with government support.
BTW what OP says has happened to Linux (at large) through Google/Android, too. The GPL hasn't stopped them but surely put some limits on their exploitation of FOSS
merc@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 42d
You could have chosen a different license than the GPL.
No. Didn't you read the license you used?
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 41d
GPL absolutely should cover shit like this. Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work, therefore it must be licensed under GPL too (with limited fair use exceptions which shouldn't apply here). The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies.
The_Decryptor@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 41d
That'd be an uphill battle, even prominent OSS projects would fight against that unfortunately.
If the output of an LLM would found to be derivative of the input, that'd cause lots of problems for (e.g.) Linux, they love claude and have been funneling its output into the kernel for a while now, they'd rather not think about the licensing situation there.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 41d
If so, then every painter who studied Picasso is making Picasso-derived works. That's not how copyright works.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 20d
I don't know what to tell you, legally there's a difference between a person learning something and training an LLM.
EvasiveSpecies@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 41d
They are also trying to take away these free resources by pushing laws to make ID identification mandatory to make money off of us.
i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 42d
And the people charging admission are also hemorrhaging money.
Weird fucking timeline.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 42d
I think their hope is if they pull it off they won't need money anymore, because they'll have destroyed the last lever of power the working class still have: the ability to withhold their labour. LLMs are trying to turn labour into just another tool (that you rent).
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 41d
Are those people so detached that they think industry is people writing emails to each other?
DigDoug@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 42d
The worst part (maybe the second worst after all the slop poisoning the internet nowadays) is the proof that copyright law is only for us poors.
I download a copyrighted work and get a strongly worded letter from my ISP, or worse. They download all the copyrighted works; scrape the data from them; and charge for the ability to use said data to make derivative, non-transformative slop; and get fabulously wealthy from it.
SaltySalamander@fedia.io · 2 pts · 42d
So stop downloading from public trackers. Get into private trackers.
DigDoug@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 42d
I meant it more as a general thing - I should have said "we" instead.
They actually seem pretty chill about it here in New Zealand. My dad and I had one ISP notice in the early 2000s, but I've downloaded absolutely shitloads since and we haven't heard a peep.
Nowadays I tend to use Usenet anyway; the speed of even the healthiest torrents pales in comparison.
SaltySalamander@fedia.io · 2 pts · 42d
Again, private trackers. =) I can easily saturate the 2.5Gbps ethernet port on my work PC. Haven't tried pushing the full 10gig link yet, don't want to draw attention to myself since it's only supposed to be 2. It would have no problem though. Private torrents are seeded by seedboxes typically. And torrent longevity on private trackers beats usenet longevity, because some people never stop seeding.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 41d
the point still stands. they are allowed, we are not, and we need to hide doing it.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 41d
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 41d
Just further enshittification. Companies donāt make new things or new technologies anymore. They just find new ways to rent squat and extract fees. Theyāve stolen everyoneās work, manufactured a way to give it to you first without you seeing the authorās material, and told everyone to use this method to access information so they can charge for it.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 42d
The same people who abuse community resources (bulldoze public green spaces, kill rivers, pollute oceans, despoil lands, toxify the air, extinct animals etc.), do the exact same to information and the sources of it. They take for themselves and give nothing back. They cannot coexist with community or communal anything (which is why they hate community and socialism). They cannot give and will compulsively take. Their lives are why greed is considered a sin, insatiable and cruel, and it was wise to believe so.
Never share anything of value with the world. Do not allow them to know value exists or they will come for it. Giving freely and openly has empowered those who advantage themselves, by stealing every idea that is shared. They are the enemy, they are the threat, their psychology is a hazard to the community.
Share only with your communities and close those communities to these thieves. The only solution to private power is community power. We need to build back our communities and abandon everything possible that they control.
Donkter@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 42d
It's crazy that the tragedy of the commons is only a problem because the commons are also free for people to close up and start charging for.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 12 pts · 42d
welcome to academic publishing, it has gone on for 50 years
PepperoniNipple@lazysoci.al · 11 pts · 41d
Justice is not only about what is fair, but also about the fear people have of suffering consequences, aka: Pain. Being in jail is painful. It's a tiny room with no hygiene, cockroaches, the toilet is right there in the same room, isolation, unlikable neighbors, years or decades without Internet, a TV or PC...
The biggest lie the Jeffrey Epstein Class managed to pull off was to convince everyone that causing pain is an "absolute" wrong. It is not. Pain is what forces us to reflect and grow the fuck up to avoid committing the same mistakes. Those fuckers didn't have enough pain in their lives, because they lived it on Easy Mode. They were surrounded by yes-men and serfs constantly glazing them and laughing at their bad jokes. Now we are here.
We don't do shit to them because we are afraid of the pain the bodyguards, the cops or the law will lay upon us. But it should not be that way. They should be afraid of the people. Right now, they are laughing at us, doing heinous shit on purpose just to test our limit, and in the worst case scenario, normalize it. Young kids are already memeing Epstein, almost treating it like it's no big deal or just a joke, I seriously hope they don't carry that attitude forever, and realize that people like Epstein deserve to have their head opened to the truth as soon as you see them. Their bodyguards, I'd say are the worst people of all. The army, cops, bodyguards; they are people who openly and proudly decided to give their lives for a dude who rapes children and is not paying people what they're truly worth, a livable wage.
Nothing will get better until the rich fear for their lives.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 41d
They only know how to punish. Fear is not enough. We must obliterate them and everything they love, that those who come after will never make their mistake.
That's why we need to vote blue no matter who this November, to make sure they get what's coming to them!
PepperoniNipple@lazysoci.al · 1 pts · 41d
TL;DR version: Those intrusive thoughts of "obliterating everything they love" can be tempting, but there are better alternatives. "Vote blue no matter what" could change to something better, more pro-working class, something fool-proof, something even the dumbest person can understand what it's about, because right now, I don't think I'm lying when I say that more than half of the entire world doesn't even know what "red vs blue" really means. They know it's politics, but, if you asked them what they think each means... Holy Toledo.
I have lost people to both democrat and republican presidents already, but I'd still choose a democrat, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that you still deserve so, so much better than what you currently have in that party.
Long version, for the chads with big dicks:
Those intrusive thoughts feel tempting because we keep seeing the top 1% happily sacrificing millions of innocent lives for their own pleasure, which is a reason I have a profound hate for bodyguards and anyone who works in the manufacture of weapons, bombs, bullets... Everything related to destruction. Whoever is giving the metal the shape, engineering the design, or even the janitor cleaning the office of those engineers so they can feel comfortably happy while designing the next drone that will blow the heads of some poor Muslim children... I have to say that "obliterating everything they love" is still not a good choice.
I think putting them in jail permanently is enough of a message. Forgiving their children and family members that can prove to be genuinely different is also an important message. Killing them would make us look too barbaric, which puts the reputation at risk, and therefor the trust, even if it happens 200+ years later. We'd just have to be consistent and keep hardening the law. It has to be done en masse too; a massive wave around the world of people taking the power and using it to put all these corrupt assholes in the worst cells possible. No Pablo Escobar/Ghislaine Maxwell vacation jail bullshit.
I don't think we will be able to stop the angriest people from passionately assassinating some of these assholes before we do that, but I won't stop them nor argue against them either, because I have personally lost family members in Lebanon and here in Mexico to these monsters, let alone all the innocent people throughout history, everywhere. I hate it. All that potential art and talent wasted just to please one boring psychopath asshole nobody likes, but is rich enough (because he exploited and killed others to enrich themselves) to feed us or not. We don't really need to keep suffering to create good art either as many think. We have enough History and drama to create an endless amount of content that'd keep us entertained and happy.
The voting blue no matter what, I hope it's innocent deep down, but so far, I think only a small number of democrats are actually decent people, imo. The majority are under AIPAC's command, they cannot even condemn the genocide in Gaza. They don't want to stop funding Israel either, so. Instead of "voting blue no matter what," I think the message should be more keen to something for the people, not some "blind support and loyalty to the party" nonsense.
"Vote for people, not parties."
"Loyalty to the people, not the party."
"People first, parties second."
"Represent us or lose us."
"Vote for the policies and actions, not because the candidate has a D next to their name."
I don't know, anything but a 1984-esque one like "vote blue no matter who." I wish people used one that focused on Humanity, on the people, not some dick-measuring contests.
It's just my fantasy, it won't happen, but whatever. I say that because I am sure the majority of the world, and I mean this: more than 60%, easily, of the entire planet, doesn't even know what "red vs blue" even really means, honestly. Like, they know it's about politics, but if you asked them what they think they mean... Oh, brother. A lot of people genuinely believe "communism and socialism are exactly the same thing and they both mean being lazy, being dirt poor all the time, and introducing homeless people in your home. Nothing else."
I am sure a lot of them are loyal to the red or blue party just because "it's their favorite color." Fuck that shit. Use a slogan that is fool-proof. One that even the dumbest motherfucker can understand what's it's about, and it's about Class Consciousness, about the Working Class, about the People, about being paid a livable wage, being paid what you're truly worth, that people deserve to see themselves at their full potential before they die, etc. Not some party, not some oligarchs, not Chuck Schumer and his stupid glasses. I have lost people to both democrat and republican presidents already, but I'd still choose a democrat, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that you still deserve so, so much better than what you currently have in that party.
Don't be a conformist; the Jeffrey Epstein Class worked so hard the past decades to turn us into conformists who are slowly normalizing this way of living. I hope we manage to flip that shit over and remove those broken psychopath weirdos.
LwL@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
I just wanna add for humor and to prove the point that I am not voting blue because blue here is the fashos. Because not everywhere is the US, and if that slogan escapes places where everyone expects US-defaultism, things could get very funny.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 40d
Are you saying we shouldn't vote blue no matter who? So you're just another fascist, huh?
PepperoniNipple@lazysoci.al · 1 pts · 39d
I literally said I'd still vote blue no matter who, even after both democrat and republican presidents have killed my family. I just added that you still deserve much better than that. I said I wish you focused more on the Working Class and the People, not a party. You are the fascist here for giving your loyalty to a party instead of Humanity.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 37d
But you're not properly enthusiastic about it so its your fault we lost.
PepperoniNipple@lazysoci.al · 1 pts · 37d
I am a Mexican, whose country currently loses 30,000+ people every year to Narcos using American guns. Happened during Bush, during Obama, during Trump, during Joe. Even before them. Reagan and Nixon (republicans) were the ones who forced us into this meaningless war. I have to focus on your country and politics, because you are the biggest influence we have, I do focus on mine too, but I can only find real change here.
You, in the other hand, you don't want to change. You still want me to blindly support whatever you say I should support. Fuck that. I will support socialist candidates like Zohran Mandami, Claire Valdez, Graham Platner, etc. If Kamala won, I wonder if this same pressure would exist, or we'd just be tolerating this miserable life, low wages, 30,000+ homicides in Mexico, 20,000+ in the USA, her supporting Israel, supporting her Mega Donors first before the people, etc. for another decade or so. At least Trump completely removed the mask and is forcing everyone to lock in and change for good now. He also revealed so many leftists like you who are still high on American Exceptionalism. If you're like that, I want to let you know that to me, you are no different from a MAGA. You still think Muslims are genetically violent, you think Mexicans are genetically violent, and that the USA should stay being the "World Police," meddling in international affairs to "fix them themselves." You still think you are the heroes, but no. You are literally terrorists. The USA is worse than HAMAS. You have killed over 30,000 mexicans with your influence and guns for decades. That's just Mexico. You exploit Africans and other Latin American countries the same way. They are suffering SO MUCH, and it is all thanks to lazy people like you who care more about their feelings than others'.
You have no empathy for implying I should be enthusiastic about supporting those fucking monsters. And also saying "it's my fault all this bad shit is happening now, for not voting blue no matter what," kiss my ass. You just want us to be compliant to the Jeffrey Epstein Class. I want it to be destroyed once and for all.
venus923@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 40d
These people are delusional for thinking that family members of Epstein class should be forgiven, if you think Epstein class will let any guilt free people high up in any organization with considerable political power then you must be raving. They both are in it together, some new party must be formed, even then you can't be sure if the new party is compromised, but that's a start.
Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 42d
Its not weird, but its wrong and should be illegal
protist@retrofed.com · 8 pts · 42d
I mean, they're saying you're replaceable, but that's just a front for layoffs. Executive leadership doesn't care about having a functioning organization. They can easily find a job somewhere else once they demonstrate short term profits, even if it's at the expense of the company's long-term health
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 42d
nobody wants to work these days!
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 42d
The only true answer to genai is to make all models created by skimming the commons, mandatory open weight and open sourced. If you try to buff copyrights to defeat genai, it's going to boomerang right back in your face
Bread@thelemmy.club · 7 pts · 41d
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 41d
Not under capital. No.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 42d
It's just normal capitalism.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 42d
Welcome to the rodeo guy who is just now becoming aware of the system of oppression we call capitalism but is a lot more like feudalism with racialized and gendered castes that we all live under.
francois@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 41d
This is not new for companies to make money on the internet using the work and information others made without compensation for the community
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs, it's just that the price is different, you pay with your attention spans instead of money
I'm pretty sure that we'll have freely accessible LLMs with ads baked in a way you can't even see them at first glance (if they aren't doing it already)
What's new with LLMs is that the information source is hidden, no credit is attributed for people that contribute to the community anymore
sfgifz@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 41d
These examples had very obvious attribution and were an easy path to you. AI on the other hand serves as the source of truth in almost all scenarios. I consider myself a savvy user and even then I find myself never actually clicking on the cited sites - just looking at their titles, most people don't even bother with that.
reksas@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 41d
which is why any opensource project should have strict restrictions about how companies are allowed to use it.
brendansimms@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 41d
big companies can (currently) legally pirate books/movies/media from torrenting sites in order to train ai algos. Source: Meta Lawsuit
jj4211@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 41d
Indeed, the courts have shockingly given a pass to torrenting down unauthorized copies to the LLM companies, versus how they destroyed some lives of private individuals for similar behavior...
Tuxman@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 41d
You see, there is a huge difference you are missing hereā¦.
They are billionaires
jj4211@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 41d
Fun fact, recently had an argument with someone defending the favorable tax situation for the ultra wealthy.
Their argument was that billionaires did not have as much "real money" as middle class people so of course the middle class people should pay more in taxes...
Relevant to nothing, but just thinking of favorable billionaire treatment right now triggers that thought..
sfgifz@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 41d
Doesn't really stop them from ignoring it anyway.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 41d
Apparently you had to sign an agreement that you will not use internet for business/commercial purposes in the NSFNET days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Network#Acceptable_use_policy
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 42d
I've seen this argument in one form or another for years, and my response has never changed:
Either information on the internet is free for everyone, or it isn't.
You don't get to publish information for the public to access and then turn around and say that some people are allowed to use it while others are not, especially if the distinction is based on whether someone might make money from it.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim information should be freely available and then try to restrict who can benefit from it.
Pick one. Either the information is free, or it isn't.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf · 11 pts · 42d
Free as in beer, not speech.
The open source community has licenses associated with its code. Just because one can access it doesn't mean they can fucking sell it.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 42d
Ok. Fine. Sure.
Not sure though what this has to do with llm companies making money. Since they write their own code and llms are trained on data.... Like wikipedia.
š¤·
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 41d
LLMs are absolutely trained on FOSS software, including GPL'd stuff. Accelerating software development is also a large part of how they are making money. I believe training on GPL'd software and then charging for access is copyright infringement, but it doesn't really matter because entities supposed to be enforcing copyright are paid for by the same billionaires who run the AI companies, so literally nothing will happen.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
This argument has never made much sense to me.
Copyright protects the expression itself, not the ideas, facts, patterns, grammar, writing styles, or knowledge learned from that expression. Humans learn from copyrighted books, articles, movies, and music every day. Nobody claims that someone who read 10,000 copyrighted novels is committing copyright infringement every time they sit down and write a new story.
That's the part I keep seeing people ignore.
If learning from copyrighted material is infringement, then every author, journalist, musician, engineer, and artist on the planet is infringing copyright because they all learned their craft from copyrighted works created by other people.
The real question is whether an AI is reproducing copyrighted content, not whether it learned from copyrighted content. Those are two completely different issues.
You don't get to argue that learning is legal when humans do it and suddenly becomes theft when a machine does it. Either learning from publicly available information is allowed, or it isn't. The standard cannot magically change because you dislike the technology.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 20d
Copyright absolutely does protect "ideas, patterns, grammar, writing styles". It does not cover material facts, but this is beside the point here.
Actually, if they take certain elements from other works it often can be considered copyright infringement, but this is also beside the point.
This is the crux of the issue. The LLM is not a person from a legal perspective, therefore it cannot "learn". What is happening is that a legal person - a company - is consuming a bunch of copyrighted material and transforming it into a bunch of data to be interpreted by a computer program. This makes that data definitionally a derivative work made by the company. Sure, the transformation process is probably "creative" enough for the company to be able to claim copyright on the resulting weights, as long as that company gains explicit or implicit approval from all the copyright holders of the works they used to create the weights. Legally speaking, this is no different from you pirating a bunch of movies and making a compilation of the funniest moments - see how the legal system would react to you doing that.
Of course, I find the entire concept of modern copyright system to be an awful idea whose entire purpose is impeding the human creativity for the purposes of monetization.
But if we read the law as it is - the AI companies are absolutely doing copyright infringement by training their models on GPL code and not releasing the weights under a GPL-compatible license.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
The explanation above comes from the Big Law Dictionary app, which is available on the Google Play Store for Android.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. If ideas could be copyrighted, it would be absurd. I don't even know how that could realistically be enforced.
This is the problem with so many people talking out of their backsides on this platform. They don't know what these legal terms actually mean or how they function. They see something they don't like and immediately start making claims about it.
LLMs do a lot of things that deserve criticism. Copyright isn't necessarily one of them.
If a company developing or operating an LLM is committing copyright infringement, then it should be prosecuted. If it has violated the law and hasn't been held accountable, that is a separate issue that should be remedied. But that is a completely different argument from claiming that LLMs are inherently infringing copyright.
An LLM uses training data to generate novel responses. That means it produces new output rather than copying source material verbatim. Simply using publicly available information to learn patterns is not, by itself, copyright infringement. If a company unlawfully obtained private or copyrighted material, or reproduced protected works in a way that violates copyright law, then it has broken the law and should be prosecuted.
But the existence of an LLM, by itself, is not copyright infringement.
So, moving forward, this can go one of two ways: either you concede that you were incorrect, or you double down and make even more absurd claims. Either way, I don't know... I've had this argument so many times on this platform that it's ridiculous.
As of right now, there are multiple lawsuits against major LLM developers. In some of those cases, the courts have ruled that training on publicly available data can qualify as fair use.
At this point, not a single court has issued a final ruling in favor of a plaintiff holding that LLM training itself is copyright infringement.
I genuinely don't know what else I'm supposed to do to prove this to you people.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 20d
Merely training an LLM on copyrighted material without holder's permission (and then distributing the weights or selling access to inference on those weights) is a violation of copyright law if it were to be applied consistently (ignoring the fair use argument, which I'll get back to). That is, if you applied any other computational process in this way, the result would be a derivative work and subject to approval by copyright holder(s). The reason it's "different" this time is that the people violating the law are richer than those who wrote the law in the first place, not because of any legal argument.
If a court ruled that it's "fair use", that actually lends more credence to the idea that LLM weights are a derivative work - "fair use" is a defense for copyright infringement that only makes sense in this case if the new work is an unauthorized derivative of the original.
Whether it's actually fair use or not is another question. I can see the fair use argument for open-weight non-commercial models, not so much for commercial offerings - commercial LLMs seem to fail all 4 elements of fair use.
BTW, I'm not even necessarily anti-AI (at least the open-weight, local models). I use a local model in my job almost daily, and also I think it's mostly good that the entirety of FOSS corpus is available for download in a compressed and easily remixable form. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the legal system which applies its already unjust copyright law (and most other laws) only against poor people.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 42d
Tech guy discovers enclosure.
LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 42d
Something something capitalist something extracting wealth from other people's labour...
tracyspcy@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 42d
on Reddit it would be something like r/AccidentalAlienation
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 42d
Quite a bit more than mildly infuriating.
TheDeadInternet@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 41d
They should be sued for theft and plagiarism.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 41d
Yes, the courts will save us!
melfie@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 40d
Using copyleft licenses for closed models is clearly against the spirit of the licenses if the users donāt have access to the source code that includes the original copyleft works. Even open weight models arenāt really the source code, and are more akin to a compiled binary. The source code is all the training data and code used to train the model such that anyone can build on it and train new models.
Iām not a lawyer and am not sure how well existing copyleft licenses like GPL or CC-SA would stand up in court to enforce this, but if they donāt, then stronger licenses that explicitly cover works being used as training data need to become more common.
Iāve seen the argument that the models are just learning from the data in the same way a human would. Thatās nonsense. Itās not like theyāre creating a sentient being with its own agency that can tell them to fuck off if it wants. These companies are running a software pipeline against copyrighted IP to convert it into a derivative work that is now supposedly wholly owned by said company, but the reality is that itās collectively owned by everyone who contributed to the copyleft training data.
sirico@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 41d
Tail as old as land
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 41d
The "you are replaceable" thing is older than everyone currently alive. It hasn't been invented by the AI tech bros.
Also, the library is still out there. You still can ignore the rent-seeking middle men and use it directly with your own natural neural network.
Syrc@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
ā¦but you have to jump between a billion hoops to get there because now itās all buried between AI results and SEO crap.
Assuming itās even still there and accessible in the same way, if its site was enshittified (did someone say Reddit?) you might need to go through additional hoops even after you actually find it.
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
Reddit is a bad example because it's still readable without an account and almost uncensored outside politics. You can also still query Reddit explicitly reasonably fine by adding "Reddit" to your search in DuckDuckGo or Google.
Reddit's enshittification is in the optional buyable reactions (which make posts and comments way more visible than voting is able to), their automated moderation, and making automated moderation for sub mods harder.
Using it as a library is what didn't get enshittified.
Syrc@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
That got enshittified too, anything marked as NSFW is not accessible without an account right now.
And from personal experience (might be just me being dumb though), old Reddit doesnāt work anymore if youāre not logged in, so youāre stuck with the new interface which auto-translates stuff and makes comment chains impossible to browse through on mobile.
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
The sort-of not really but they will tell that it is one to the government for NSFW content is just ass covering. Can't really blame them for not wanting their business getting closed by some lunatics who happen to be in power.
Auto-translation is a feature the author can use (but I do have an extension for translating marked text too, because translation is actually a pretty useful feature to have in general).
For me on desktop, the UI is okay. But yeah, it probably sucks on mobile. UI generally tends to suck on mobile.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 41d
I did fine without AI, they can charge what they want.
Not buying it anyway
baller_w@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 42d
Socialize it.
Impractical_Island@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
I never had a license for having a big dick til they made it a requirement requestement that make it do what it as it do be it for cuz that's what it be.
Impractical_Island@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
Sorry, lost some blood to my brain for a second when I was thinking of small land mammals.
fxdave@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 40d
It's cheap. I don't have good enough hardware to run these models anyways.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 41d
So fucking close to getting it...
ThunderQueen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 41d
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 42d
If you did it for free, what boss is replacing you?
Why can't you just keep doing it?
notabot@piefed.social · 2 pts · 41d
They don't want to replace the you that is producing free content for them to ingest, they want to replace the you that earns enough money to live.
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · -1 pts · 41d
current wave of AI isn't even new technology
We had predictive text. We had neural networks. We had both for more than few decades. Someone just decides "what if predictive text was built on neural network?" and it worked much better than old solution. In fact old solution worked pretty much like one-layer neural network.
TechBros literally took something we already had, made it more expensive and sold it to investors.
themagzuz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 41d
ehh not exactly. the current wave within ai was started in 2017 with the google paper "attention is all you need", which introduced the transformer architecture (the T in GPT). deep neural networks were still used for NLP before this, it was just LSTMs instead of transformers, which had various limitations
clifmo@programming.dev · -4 pts · 42d
Turns out distilling all the world's information into a friendly interface is worth something
Sunforged@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 42d
Search engines did that decades ago. AI presents it's results as fact without the ability to provide a source, it's an aggressively unfriendly interface.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 42d
It's presented as friendly but yeah it's actually incredibly hostile and predatory
clifmo@programming.dev · 1 pts · 42d
The interface is friendly. Agreed.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 42d
Oh, they provide sources. At least, some of them do. It's just that the sources don't always back them up. It's going to gin up sources whether it's correct or not, because that's what it's programmed to do.
Sunforged@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 42d
I haven't used the latest models, I am really fucking over it, but yeah when I would ask for sources on why the model provided the answer it did every time they would jist hallucinate a web address.
clifmo@programming.dev · 3 pts · 42d
Oh yea 25 years ago search engines were amazing
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 41d
And it only makes sense that they'd get worse over time because technology has gotten worse.
Errr, wait....
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 42d
It's not the same. The ability to converse about a topic is pretty dope. Compared to ring to find relevant information about a very unique case for instance.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 41d
Then how come none of the AI companies are actually profitable?
clifmo@programming.dev · 2 pts · 41d
So only profitable things have value?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 41d
To capitalists? Yeah
clifmo@programming.dev · 1 pts · 41d
So, I'm a little lost. You think AI isn't useful because it isn't generating profits? Or you think it's not useful because of how it distills information and presents it in a chat interface (which was the only point I made)?
Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 42d
anyone who starts sentence with "bro" can f-off
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 41d
Bro why tho
drmoose@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 42d
I'm actually a guy who did this. 50k reputation on stack overflow, several tech blogs, reddit contributions and you know what? I love that LLMs are "stealing" my content. Most of us just do it for the love of the game and genuine belief that free information is good for the society. The only down side is not getting attribution credit which sucks but nothing compared to the benefits we all get.
Also no one's capable of creating this is being replaced by an LLM. Let's be clear here. If you are capable of educating complex tech subjects you are already in the top 10% of the market.
chloroken@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 42d
Everyone look at this corporate apologist and laugh.
drmoose@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 42d
Why corporate? Open source LLMs also use this data (even more so) and imo will eventually win over current market loss leaders.
If you truly believe information should be free and accessible to all then LLMs - which are just intelligent interface to our collective compressed information - are a good thing.
chloroken@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 41d
Compete gibberish.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 42d
Being told and being replace is kinda different. At least being replace mean the replacement already happened, being told mean you have to deal with the looming threat of being replaced and constantly bugged by the stupidity of your employer.
drmoose@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 42d
Yeah the sword of damocles is real here but I think a lot of capable people are under selling themselves and could easily find fit when let go. The market should grow due to new tooling so if anything senior experience is a major boon in an expanding market.
The real risk is allowing billionaires to monopolize the market and seems like people are conflating this with LLMs as a technology. It's ludites all over again.