So you can still pirate, but most people don't. Maybe LLMs will be the same, sure you could use an uncensored/unlicensed model that doesn't pay royalties to publishers, but why risk it?
Open source models generally do not have that option. Maybe there are some exceptions like Meta using some private data in future Llamas, but I question how sustainable those efforts are.
This might not last with the fragmentation of streaming services (I don't think people are ready to pay $10x10 for access to all services).
I think, in general, there are relatively few completely ideological 'pirates.' People will buy things when they can easily afford it, and it's easy to do so. When it's too expensive, not locally available, or when the payment methods involve hassles, they will simply download it instead.
Most streaming, AFAIK, is not P2P. Streaming gives you instant access to the content, and streaming clients are often simpler to use, with features such as recommender systems, etc.
Japan, for one, has thrown the fight - they stand to gain more by harboring new technology than ensuring royalties are paid to publishers of the last century.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230607091817/https://technoman...
discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36144241
"<LLM>, analyze the contents of this 500 page bill. Who stands to gain from this bill, and what outcomes is it likely to have for the general public? Is this bill in line with good faith evidence-based policymaking for the good of the population and the planet? What existing legal mechanisms could be used to fight the special-interest aspects of this bill?"
Using those legal mechanisms requires money and often public support. The LLM can’t conjure either.
The world is already full of smart people and good ideas about policy. The reason they’re not getting implemented probably has little to do with things that AI can solve today. For starters, a lot of voters actively dislike policy suggestions from experts and choose politicians who proudly go against expert opinion. Giving AI tools to the experts won’t change that.
It's a fundamentally different kind of knowledge generation than reading an expert opinion - it's branching, self-directed, and responsive.
I personally know three different group trying to excatly that.
"<More Powerful/Popular State/Corpo-owned LLM>: it's pretty hard to fight this, just trust we've got got your back. Remember, we're currently handling that other case for you. Would be a shame to lose you as a client."
This is more or less the process that goes on inside a thinking human, is it not? I don't want to outsource ethical decision making, I want to outsource cognitive effort. By analogy, you don't rely on a bulldozer to decide not to bulldoze a populated nursing home - that's on the user, as are the consequences.
Current power structures demonstrably cannot be trusted to limit themselves to ethical solutions (Military Industrial Complex, Climate Change, etc etc etc pick your poison) - why should they be trusted to censor cognitive tools?
It's a race to the bottom in favor of open source.
We need the ability to circulate HDDs physically in a semi-organized fashion, samizdat-style.
Realistically only maybe 10% of that is actually useful, but reaching that 10% is gonna be very labour-intensive. You would have to do a lot of cleanup of different formats, duplicate uploads, different editions of the same book, scanned PDFs, and what not, while big players with their own ebook stores (Amazon, Google, Apple, any ebook store) already have all of the proper metadata, a common format to work with, and a lot less duplicates.
For training AGI (artificial general intelligence) maybe only a select few mega companies with massive datasets will be able to come up with training data.
There are so many other use cases that OSS projects can enable otherwise. Individuals or smaller companies have unique data that can be used to augment existing open source models. Many use cases are area specific, and without the need for general intelligence.
Palantir just did a talk at the AIPCon ( https://youtu.be/o2b0DwNg6Ko ), where they recommended the use of many LLMs, open and closed. ( the example had Llama 2 70B, GPT4, Palm coding, claude, + fine-tuned models) feeding into their synthesizer.
While I want open source to win, especially as an open source maintainer on Ollama (if you haven't seen it yet, it's one of the easiest ways to run LLMs locally - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama ), I think the work so far in this space has been a positive sum one - open or closed.
Caveat: I am not your lawyer.
???
Why would he suddenly think you are?
I don't know if this is actually been a problem ever brought to a judge to be honest, but that's the reason why that disclaimer is made and of course, I am not your lawyer.
Everyone is of course free to speak about legal matters and provide their take, but keep in mind that even well studied lawyers, with all of the context and evidence are not always successful in their arguments. Internet forums are many steps removed from these professionals, so you should moderate accordingly.
In forums such as Reddit/Hacker News/etc, there are many discussions that concern legal matters - in my experience the overwhelming majority of highly voted comments and frequently repeated ideas are not ones which are grounded in fact, but rather comments that align with the groups desires. People upvote and repeat ideas that appeal to them, not to ones which they've investigated themselves as factual or accurate.
Another one to look out for is IANAL: "I am not a lawyer". (Yes I'm being serious with this acronym.) This is to avoid a different kind of liability: the unauthorised practice of law.
I don't think once you pay a lawyer their IQ jumps 20 points and they're necessarily more correct than crowdsourced information. Doctors and lawyers arent somehow infallible once hired
I (and others) actually do do that when it seems relevant, eg [0] (and it's parent which does similar[1]).
Nah, we aren't. You can't make any money off an open-source project via litigation, and torrents exist. This baseless fear-driven nonsense will eventually blow over.
Basically, there is a lot of money to be made in AI, and if money is available to fund development it will not be that difficult to turn that money into compute, particularly in a context where the current huge "legitimate" buyers like Microsoft, Amazon, Google are banned from using AI chips for AI.
Of course, as someone else noted, this is probably ultimately going to be in the US a question for Congress and the courts.
I think we’re witnessing the death of open source AI. The logical outcome of this is that only large companies will be able to acquire and use the training data necessary to compete with ChatGPT.
So anyone who thinks otherwise will have to answer the question: how are we going to make any datasets?
It’s tempting to think that we can pull together data out of non copyrighted work. But there isn’t enough data. That would mean the model has no knowledge about any books.