What do you think of copyright violations?
Currently the AI stuff kind of sucks because you have to be a giant corp to train a model. But maybe in a decade, users will be able to train their own models or at least fine-tune on basic cellphone and laptop (not dgpu) chips.
I mean, you don't have to look any further than the (justified) lack of sympathy to dockworkers just a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704618
The solution is not, and never has been, to shack up with the capital-c Capitalists in defense of copyright. It's to push for a system where having your "work" automated away is a relief, not a death sentence.
I would engage with those people you're stereotyping rather than gossiping in a comments section, I suspect you will find their ideologies quite consistent once you tease out the details.
It shouldn't be too surprising that anti-establishment folks are more concerned with trillion-dollar companies subsuming and profiting from the work of independent artists, writers, developers, etc., than with individual people taking IP owned by multimillion/billion-dollar companies. Especially when many of the companies in the latter group are infamous for passing only a tiny portion of the money charged onto the people doing the actual creative work.
Tech still acts like it's the scrappy underdog, the computer in the broom cupboard where "the net" is a third space separate from reality, nerds and punks writing 16-bit games.
That ceased to be materially true around twenty years ago now. Once Facebook and smart phones arrived, computing touched every aspect of peoples' lives. When tech is all-pervasive, the internal logic and culture of tech isn't sufficient to describe or understand what matters.
Winning by what metric?
It's also orthogonal to the current corporate dystopia which is using monopoly power to enclose the value of individual work from the other end - precisely by inserting itself into the process of physical distribution.
None of this matters if you have a true abundance economy, but we don't. Pretending we do for purely selfish reasons - "I want this, and I don't see why I should pay the creator for it" - is no different to all the other ways that employers stiff their employees.
I don't mean it's analogous, I mean it's exactly the same entitled mindset which is having such a catastrophic effect on everything at the moment.
Remember Napster? Like how rebellious was that shit? Those times are what a true social upsetting tech looks like.
You cannot even import a video into OpenAI’s Sora without agreeing to a four (five?) checkbox terms & conditions screen. These LLM’s come out of the box neutered by corporate lawyers and various other safety weenies.
This shit isn’t real until there are mainsteam media articles expressing outrage because some “dangerous group of dark web hackers finished training a model at home that very high school student on the planet can use to cheat on their homework” or something like that. Basically it ain’t real until it actually challenges The Man. That isn’t happening until this tech is able to be trained and inferenced from home computers.
I think the training process constitutes commercial use.
Is the result of an llm an accurate copy or more of an inspiration? What is the standard we use on humans?
Can we code that determination into a system that when a piece of content is close enough to be a copyrighted work, prevents the llm from generating it?
great if AI accelerates its destruction (even if it's through lobbying to our mafia-style protect-the-richest-company governments)
Unfortunately this is not the way it's developing. It's more like: are you a normal person without deep pockets? Download a movie with Bittorrent and get a steep fine. Are you a company with hundreds of millions? Download half the copyrighted material on the internet, it's fine.
We are increasingly shifting to a society where the rules only don't apply when you have capital. To some extend, this has always been true, but the scale is changing.