[mbgerring]

There is no reason we should accept the enclosure of the digital commons represented by AI. The data these models are trained on amounts to the total intellectual and artistic output of human kind through recorded history. It belongs to all of us, and accordingly, so should the models and weights produced by it.

[nxm]

It belongs to not us, but the copyright holders of that work

[dwa3592]

and that is millions of people; hence the use of the word 'us'.

[cyanydeez]

ok, but government is how you do that. and as should be evident, its easy to year down and corrupt

[hootz]

Companies aren't really that better. Actually, sometimes it's even worse, because they are not even formally required to serve the public.

[Chu4eeno]

A big reason for that is the dumb decision from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., giving us this quasi-capitalism which optimizes for the wrong thing.

[logancbrown]

The effort of humans who had to toil through training models belongs to everyone? Do they no longer have any ownership over their hard work?

[cgannett]

A drop in the bucket compared to the value of the collective human work that was stolen to train it.

edit: come to think about it I think the ratio of one drop to one bucket is vastly over estimating the ratio of the trainer's effort.

[logancbrown]

No human work was stolen, it was read.

[folkrav]

Calling what LLMs do just "reading" is, at best, naïve anthropomorphization.

[riddlemethat]

They got paid. That’s what the money was for. It’s the investors who backed these foundational model companies who will hold the bag as more open source models come along and consume more market share.

[thewebguyd]

I agree, but

> the investors who backed these foundational model companies who will hold the bag

Is awfully bold to assume that private credit is who will be holding the bag here. The IPOs are coming to shift the risk to the index funds & retail. Once insider lock up periods expire, I suspect a massive sell off.

[tencentshill]

Some consider copyright to be unethical. "Information wants to be free".

[thewebguyd]

Information also wants to be expensive, and that tension will never go away. "Information wants to be free" is only one side of the context of that quote.

> On the one hand you have—the point you’re making Woz—is that information sort of wants to be expensive because it is so valuable—the right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information almost wants to be free because the costs of getting it out is getting lower and lower all of the time. So you have these two things fighting against each other.

Information may want to be free, but the humans creating it still need to eat and pay rent. Copyright isn't necessarily unethical more than its a flawed tool, and lasts far too long in the law's current state. It needs to last only and exactly as long for the original creator to profit from the work for a specific duration of time, and then thats it.

[vitally3643]

No, greedy people want information to be expensive.

It is only because of rampant greed and capitalism that information is not free. There is nothing inherent about the collective knowledge of mankind that lends itself to being proprietary and expensive. Otherwise human society literally could not have evolved.

[layer8]

Copyright isn’t about information.

[altcognito]

Great framing for your case, but I think it is less that it is unethical and more that ideas/copyright isn't perpetual, nor should it be fully transferrable to a corporation (a non-person entity)

I'd struggle to find an idea, art, technique etc... that wasn't an extension of something that came before it.

[RRWagner]

I would propose that copyrights not be eternal

[dofm]

Paying them may now be impossible. There might be some legal settlements still.

Preventing a handful of massive companies from continuing to be the only ones able to make money off that, not only unimpeded but with overt or covert state assistance (regulatory capture, ownership, whatever), at least puts an end to the worst of the abuse.

If we have broken the idea of copyright, and we do indeed appear to have broken the idea of copyright, why should trillion dollar companies owned and controlled by strange or psychopathic weirdos and their circle of investors be the only ones benefiting? Why do Sam and Dario or the US government get to decide when and for whom the tap is turned on?

[petcat]

Not too mention the unbelievable cost of actually doing all that training.

[SoftTalker]

People used to make the similar arguments about programming languages and compilers. Now you'd need extaordinary requirements to justify paying licensing or usage fees for a language runtime or compiler.

[failbuffer]

Are the going to pay for the societal harms they cause?