Aaron Schwartz’s prosecution was always bullshit. RIP.
Chinese models like Kimi are already competing head-to-head with Claude Opus in term of capability. And the main reason that kimi isn’t as widely used as Claude is because Chinese companies aren’t burning investors money to keep subscription prices low. I wonder how long will this dominance can last. Since investor money will eventually run out. and once that happens, what plans do they have to keep competing with free open weight models that already closed the gap.
“Retain”? What in the actual fuck are you talking about? You surrendered that ages ago.
Gotta keep the voters believing the US is the best at everything.
Yeah, the forms of government propped up by capitalism tend to side with capitalism.
Precedent that copyright is not legally enforceable
Precedent that laws don’t apply to billionaires.
Bro we lost global leadership in AI so what are you saying
I am pirating this book to train AI (Actual Intelligence).
There’s not just a desperation for Skynet by US government, like protecting oil from EVs/renewables, this is also about creating new oligarchs to fund electoral results that oppress Americans/humanity.
which technically makes piracy legal because that’s the gov endorsing piracy
Peasants like us can contribute to global leadership by being wage slaves and cannon fodder
Legal for them, not for us
should update torrent client to say “LLM training agent” instead, legally safe /s
I consider myself somewhat of a LLM.
Nah we might need to accept reality. You need to be rich enough to make some bullshit company that uses A.I. then you can pirate legally using that A.I. as an excuse.
so Norm was right. …
Misleading title from Techcrunch. It’s the Trump Administration only (which we already know)
So it’s eminent domain on other people’s copyrighted content?
Gotta keep funneling money to those billionaires.
To my understanding, and excuse me if I‘m wrong because I‘m not a lawyer but that‘s not what the fucking law says? You either uphold copyright law or abandon it. There is no middle way and if courts disagree with you, your stance doesn‘t really matter here.
You misunderstand. YOU can’t use the data. Heck, you can’t easily find it anymore either. They’re scanning all the books and ripping them up as we speak too.
Big companies CAN because they own YOU. Clear?
Uh what do you mean you can’t easily find it anymore? Search engines still exist (perhaps avoid Google unless you have to use it) and neither bookstores, nor the library, are out of books.
The reason they can do this with books is that there are so, so many books that nobody else wants to buy. Like so many that you can just buy books by the foot as a decoration. What books will you get? Nobody knows because nobody gave enough of a fuck to write it down. They’re only valuable for LLM training because they’re new data and they’re only “rare” (as said in some articles) because there wasn’t enough demand to print more.
And destroying the books means there’s no extra copy of them, so for the purpose of copyright law, all is good unless an LLM straight up recites a passage from a book.
Honestly that whole thing might end up being net neutral or even positive, as the paper can be recycled, instead of sitting around as books nobody will read.
We are all training our own AI models now.
Remember that it’s always morally acceptable to break in and destroy AI data centers. The only ones harmed are not people.
Firmly an example of capitalism cannibalism themselves.
It may not abolish copyright but it is causing cracks.
Copyright was always a scam, non personal information should be free. Multiple people can have the same good idea, walling of access to a good idea behind capital blocks human progress.
Before anyone says something, yes artists deserve to eat… just like everyone else. Being economically productive should not be a condition for that. Make your art for fun and enjoy the honor of being copied with a sidedish of UBI.
If we didnt have copyright laws then the wealthy would just copy everyone’s good ideas and ensure the people who created those ideas get little to nothing, like Amazon making their own versions of every popular item and selling it for less than the original product.
You must be joking, the vast majority of patents are owned by large corporations.
Can you give me one example of where copyright is protecting an average wealth citizen?
Enforcing copyright requires you to have the economic resources to create lawsuits when it gets infringed. Sometimes enforcing your rights can costs into millions of dollars. Infringers often have the resources to delay the legal case till you the rightsholder have no more money left to continue.
Places like china don’t care about it either and they will just copy and sell on the western market anyway.
Some sources for the later
15 years of non transferable copyright encourages creativity.
Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.
The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.
Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.
To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.
If employees owned the means of production, this would be a moot point… Just pointing that out for people.
It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.
Sure, evidence?
Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they’ll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there’s zero reason to pay them.
So hear me out.
From a purely strategic standpoint, the ultimate goal is artificial general intelligence. Eventually, humanity is going to get there. The question is who gets there first, and what they do with it.
The country that achieves genuinely transformative AGI first could potentially gain an enormous strategic advantage. And if AGI is capable of significantly accelerating AI research itself, that advantage could compound very quickly: AGI helps develop better AI, which accelerates scientific and technological development, which produces even more capable AI.
Whoever gets there second may not necessarily be permanently incapable of catching up, but they could find themselves facing a massive technological and economic gap that becomes increasingly difficult to close.
And here’s where I think things get uncomfortable.
The countries competing to develop this technology are not necessarily going to have the same restrictions. Some countries may be considerably less concerned about copyright, training data, ethical restrictions, censorship, or what subjects an AI is permitted to discuss.
I’m not saying those concerns aren’t legitimate. They absolutely are. But from a purely geopolitical standpoint, there is a potential danger in one country imposing significant self-restraints while its competitors don’t.
Because if AGI really does become as transformative as many people believe it could be, this isn’t just another technology race. It could become a race over scientific advancement, industrial capacity, military technology, economic productivity, and potentially the ability to develop even more advanced AI.
And, honestly, I would rather the United States and other democratic countries reach that point first than China, North Korea, or another highly authoritarian state.
That doesn’t mean I think democratic countries are incapable of abusing powerful technology. Of course they are. The point is that who controls a technology this powerful matters enormously.
So when people talk about AI development purely in terms of corporate profits or whether AI companies should be allowed to train on particular datasets, I think they’re sometimes missing the much larger geopolitical picture.
We’re potentially talking about a technology that could fundamentally alter the balance of power between nations.
That’s a very different conversation.
Disclaimer: I’m not necessarily advocating for AI or LLMs here. I’m simply trying to look at the situation from a purely strategic/geopolitical perspective and consider how governments and other actors might view the race toward AGI.
explain why an AGI would propel intellectual and economic growth past its creator’s peers.
we already feed all of human knowledge into these dumbass chatbots and don’t get anything out of it other than super-autist pattern recognition.
“but if it could think, it would immediate solve all the problems plaguing humanity” – says the dumbass AI bro.
Well said.
