Meta is asking California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block OpenAI’s planned transition from a non-profit to for-profit entity.
In a letter sent to Bonta’s office this week, Meta says that OpenAI “should not be allowed to flout the law by taking and reappropriating assets it built as a charity and using them for potentially enormous private gains.”
The letter, which was first reported on by The Wall Street Journal and you can read in full below, goes so far as to say that Meta believes Elon Musk is “qualified and well positioned to represent the interests of Californians in this matter.” Meta supporting Musk’s fight against OpenAI is notable given that Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were talking about literally fighting in a cage match just last year.
don’t just block them. force all AI companies that use online content for research to move to a nonprofit and require them to provide their source code openly.
tax payer dollars paid to create that content so that means that AI is tax payer bought.
don’t like it? train your models on a closed network that’s behind a paywall.
Dont limit this to AI companies. All social media companies should be forced to become nonprofits and their code AGPL’d
But the AGPL does not prevent you from doing commercial activities
Being nonprofit also doesn’t prevent you from doing commercial activities.
But i think the idea would be if they are forced to be nonprofit and their code open-sourced then there is now transparency in how their LLMs are trained and operate.
But it’s a bit silly to try to make AI companies nonprofits to begin with since they could just go to another country with “better” laws if they are punished too heavily in one country.
People gotta eat. There’s nothing wrong with selling open source software
The most important part is that the people and the government can see how the suggestion and feed algorithms are written, so they they can make them change them if they’re found to lead to increased harm, such as suicides.
That’s beyond stupid.
If you don’t want bots scraping your content, then don’t put it up on the public internet.
I think you’re misunderstanding the origin of the Internet.
I was there, I know what made the Internet amazing before it was sold out for corporate interests.
It was inspired by another technology that was, in many ways, the Internet of the early 20th century. I’m referring to HAM radio.
HAM radio is fun because of the strict regulations operators need to follow and the communities that are fostered in those regulations.
the early Internet was not only built by those same people, but had fostered the same kind of spirit behind HAM. corporate interests broke the dam on a lack of regulation and have been flooding the web for decades since.
if we want to return to any semblance of what the Internet supported at the turn of the century, we must increase regulations that prohibit the abuse and theft of online intellectual property.
If a company can be considered a person, then I see no reason why each of my online contributions can’t be one as well. and as such no reason why each of those contributions can’t be afforded the same protections of personhood giants like UHC, Amazon, OpenAI can benefit from.
Do artists not deserve the right to decide who profits from their art, even if it’s posted to the internet? Would it be ethical for me to sell posters of artwork I did not create without the artists permission?
No, I don’t think they deserve that “right.”
Ethics vary from person to person and change with the times. I think it would be ethical because I do not support the ownership of ideas.
This is one of the funnier things I see frequently on here. People both champion free and open source code and data that can be used for anything… until it is used for anything they even mildly dislike.
it’s disturbing how many people blindly agree with you.
free and open does not mean open menu to make money from.
I shared this comment on Lemmy with the full intention to allow the community to benefit from it, not for a company with an inflated valuation of $1.2B to steal, bottle, and sell to the world.
Maybe that’s what you believe, but allowing commercial use has been a core tenant of free and open source software
no it hasn’t. the first instance of open source anything was a major manufacturer(Ford) strong arming the patent office into forcing a patent holder to give up the rights to his patent effectively making it worthless.
only then to create a shell company (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) that would then hold the rights to the patent and share it with all motor vehicle manufacturers.
it was all a grift to get the patent away from the original holder so that Ford would directly benefit from it because they didn’t have an engineering team capable enough to design an engine that didn’t infringe upon the original patent.
because of this we have had zero to no true innovation on engine designs outside of a racetrack (which also directly benefits the manufacturer).
so don’t go spouting that FOSS has always been about being an equalizing factor to intellectual property rights, because if anything it’s the exact opposite.