[WarmWash]

> the data they basically steal from everyone

What's the precedent?

All I see if a bunch of people who haven't loaded an ad in 20 years and have a 5TB collection of pirated movies and music suddenly decrying that LLM's doing next token prediction over a dataset is theft.

You don't get to change your mind 20 years into "I'm never going to pay for anything binary" ethos (cough look at what this post is cough) that has dominated the internet for decades. If people are genuinely upset about LLMs training on all available data without compensation, all I can say is "Reap what you sow".

[philipov]

It would be all fine and good if they kept it non-commercial, but when you start charging money for it that's when you're stepping out of bounds. If they want to benefit from fair use, they should contribute their results back to the public domain. Getting it for free and then commercializing it is what's unethical.

[WarmWash]

>Getting it for free and then commercializing it is what's unethical.

Like all those unethical software devs taking salaries for turning stackoverflow into products? I suppose the blood still flows since now they just use LLM output?

Any way you try and slice LLM morality, you end up with "It's bad because they are not me" reasons. "When I monetize information I get for free, it's good, when they monetize information they get for free, it's bad"

[theplumber]

Ok then can the feds bust the executives of these companies like they did with Kim Dotcom? It’s not like Dario trained his AI in the bedroom or do a small business by letting people scrapping IP work to train their models. He is actively stealing and selling the stolen work and even preaches us safety measures: how to protect us from our own knowledge that he stole!

[koe123]

I am not convinced by your retort, which essentially boils down to “some people pirate, so its ironic some people, maybe different, are mad at dario!”

[Diogenesian]

  "Reap what you sow"

It is kind of incredible that you're not focused at all on the copyright holders, instead focusing on random tech people you had online disagreements with.

Artists and writers got screwed first by piracy, then by generative AI. They didn't sow anything. They just got reaped.

And the only thing the copyright hypocrites are "reaping" is a feeling of hypocrisy. Congrats for pointing that out. Your comment is simply myopic.

[t0mpr1c3]

> Artists and writers got screwed first by piracy, then by generative AI.

That's too glib. Artists don't have a right to money that people won't spend.

It's not all down to bad actors. Although it's true that musicians got screwed when their distributors switched to a subscription model. Writers got screwed by the Amazon monopsony that crammed down publisher's margins.

Mostly what happened is that media technologies changed, professional creators had less control over production, and the money flowed upstream leaving them with a smaller niche.

All of their output used to be gatekept by media companies who had a lock on publishing. The internet reduced distribution costs to zero. Suddenly anybody could reach an audience.

Now generative AI has dropped the cost of content creation to the basement. It's so much easier to write a blog post or make an illustration.

That isn't cannibalizing content. It's a new way of making. It takes a lot of the value out of creating those kinds of things. The customer experiences this as a reduction in cost.

These changes happen with every new gadget. Photographers have to compete against everybody with a phone in their pocket. Now they just do weddings.

My grandfather was a portrait painter in the 1940s, a profession that was already moribund from the proliferation of photography studios. He gave up and became an insurance salesman.

Maybe he got screwed. The photography studios are all gone too. Because anybody can make a portrait using the phone in their pocket. At zero cost.