[markhahn]

mythos has not been demonstrated doing anything dramatically different than other models. so as other comments say: very premature.

but the basic premise (shared among a lot of ai-doomers and ai-shamers), is that the bigs have somehow raped society (by training on everything available). this needs to be challenged: it implies quite a strong model of IP ownership, which is not what appears in law, or in founding documents (which are quite different from current law).

[adrian_b]

"Raping society" seems an appropriate term, though a better metaphor is cutting a public forest or mining in public lands, which are other examples of converting public properties into private properties.

Actually I, and apparently many others, would have no problem with the fact that companies like OpenAI or Google have gathered huge amounts of information from all over the world into their training sets.

What bothers me is that I do not have access to the same information. If I would try to run a bot, it would be blocked immediately by all sites. If I would copy pirated books or movies, that is supposed to be punishable legally.

None of what is forbidden for me was forbidden for the big companies. What I want is not that they should be punished, but I want for myself and for any other people the same rights, i.e. access to the same training sets.

For now, I must be grateful that a part of the hoarded information is available for the public in a non-deterministic manner in the existing open-weights models.

This is much better than nothing, but I would prefer access to the training sets, even if in that case the AI companies would keep for themselves any trained models. There are many tricks that they have used during training, but by far the input training data is much more important, since anyone can discover better training algorithms.

What I find unacceptable is that now they consider as their private property what they have mined from public lands.

[martin-t]

> What I find unacceptable is that now they consider as their private property what they have mined from public lands.

So how do you propose to fix that without a law similar to copyright? (At least similar to the intent of copyright, the specific implementation leaves much to be desired, obviously.)

[achierius]

While I don't agree with your conclusion, I like the phrase -- "raped society" does quite well capture the feeling of violation I think many feel at having their own publications turned into machines meant to impoverish them.