aeon_ai

> It seems like there isn’t someone high-up whose job is strictly to say “no” to these requests, which is incredibly important when it comes to product engineering

Ah, product management - we know so few of ye who know what you're doing.

I've got news for you on how the economy works.

Contract law covers the use of licensed materials -- The license is the enforcement mechanism. Agreement of the model terms is implied by the use of the model.

If someone were to create a derivative model and distribute that, it would get murky if they licensed it Apache 2.0 or MIT, because users of that derivative would have never agreed to the upstream license (and may not even be aware of it), and the model is unlikely to be copyrightable.

Uh...

Seems like rage is maybe a tad misplaced?

No, you're missing his.

Technology progresses. You're playing to an end-state of AI that assumes labor disappears entirely because you have yet to see what the new labor system looks like.

> At the time of writing (23rd Oct), eMudhra has announced that it will be retiring from the certificate authority space. In unrelated news, a farmer has announced that he has shut his stable door, following reports of an escaped horse.

Ah, wit is alive and strong!

The author is obviously informed, but just as clearly biased.

Accused Dario of being part of Ilya’s coup against Sam Altman (now retracted), stated “ It’s an open secret that the training data wasn’t legally obtained anyway” when fair use has very clearly been established, and panders to the anti-AI doomer crowd with talk about how AI won’t be useful economically until we can get to the energy efficiency of the human brain while still invoking the boogeyman of killer drones and cyberterrorism.

Jev was overhyped, and the marketing was clearly looking to coin a few buzzwords, but the author seems to be intentionally ignoring the pace of development, the erosion of traditional intellectual property assumptions, and the realities of the technology. It can be overhyped, but this is very clearly the telos of all technology.

The notion that the average developer would recover from the removal of modern high level language abstractions and frameworks, learn assembly, and go back to their regular coding velocity is patently absurd.

Thanks for calling it out. Noted!

> All the devs would spend a couple weeks learning assembly and go on coding

A couple weeks?! Really slacking, why not a few hours?

Add the violin and calculus while they're at it.

Perhaps, that still frames harassing and antagonizing "Aaron Schwartz" as a bad thing (he was a "good guy"), and then implying that said bad thing should happen to AI because it is bad, when the modern AI frontier lab is operating on the fundamental philosophy that Aaron shared which is that information is free.

Compute, however, clearly is not.

If you think Aaron Schwartz would not have fought for exactly the freedom of information that would enable AI training, you misunderstand Schwartz and the nature of information freedom.

I continue to find that people strongly advocate for justice on exactly opposing sides, depending on who they have been told to think the “bad guy” is.

> But the master had already overwritten it with a copy of DOOM.

A master after my own heart.

On every objective measure, quality is improving and the trendline is clear.

I'm by no means citing that AI is perfect, or that there are no problems or challenges ahead, but the self-lobotomizing AI doomerism/rejection is turning otherwise intelligent people into a horde of anti-AI lemmings that are afraid to apply the critical thinking they believe is being lost by AI users.

These things are puppeteering blender to model things for gods sake. Are you all blind?

"Generate me an explainer video of someone holding a sign stating "I have no idea what I'm talking about" being educated about the realities of time, labor, and 'good enough'"

You're right. I didn't even need AI to get my point across.

It was AI that wrote the article, not the Author.

If your audience is the AI pilled, your inability to sense your own slop is a signal of incompetence.

Your “simple defense” is one that misunderstands the economic value of creative work.

I know an artist who has done well for themselves. They have done so because they have revealed that they know what it is they sell. “I sell paper”

The artist is the source of value. An AI can produce visual media, but it can not be an artist. The artist is not one work, but the source of many arts.

Copyright is the protection of the creative work in a fixed media. It is not the protection of ideas or styles.

My thrust is therefore not that protection of creative work should be abolished, but that the notion of “theft” of ideas and styles is one that is not protected by copyright today, and only serves entrenched corporate interests.

We are either entering a world of hyperliquid culture or tyranny.

And the use of the data largely being considered 'fair use' means that theft is an assertion based not in law, but in perception and ignorance.

Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.

I've always referred to it in UX terms. "Progressive Disclosure" -- It pulls more context as needed.

In this way, I tend to think of the context environment on an agent is the "agent nav" -- it presents context, allows progressive disclosure, and if poorly designed, makes the agent flounder as a poorly designed UI/UX does.

A DAG?! Holy innovation, Batman!

No, it’s been decided by the courts to be fair use.

I’m not sure why people think they understand IP law better than the courts just because they don’t like the answer

Vectoralist News doesn’t have the same ring to it

Depending on the context, it’s fair use.

As it is, in this case.

> Can I make my own competitive LLM?

Yes, yes you can.

See the number of startups that have finetuned or trained an OSS model to build their business on.

“But you have to have compute!”

Ok, and you’re writing OSS on a rock with no internet connection?

The world has all kinds of barriers, but if anyone has a chance of competing on the LLM from it’s not going to be by getting rid of fair use.

forecasting = modeling = intelligence, you mean?

And while compute likely is being overinvested in now (i.e., the price is artificially inflated, supply is being dramatically increased, etc.), the likelihood that this is a temporary shortage and, in the event of 'hype' deflating, an impending surplus -- I don't think we yet have to fear the inability for one to personally compute.

You're going to probably be downvoted because the truth is hard and the collective human ego is self-reinforcing, but I think you are correct.

'Quality' is a function of filling in the gaps of the new tools, not eschewing them entirely.

Some older folks I know call it Chat Jippity non-ironically

You are. Most people have just long decided to forgo nuance for the simplicity of snark and hate as a default response

Not quite.

If the materials were publicly available on a site and scraped? Fair use.

If they were distributed illegally and acquired through that distribution? Cooked.

If you scraped it AND saved it? Cooked.