• skillissuer
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    i’m not. just because he’s an underdog here means that you’re gonna ignore all the harms of generative ai up to this day? it’s like complaining that big oil stole the idea of adding tetraethyllead to gasoline from you and you got no profits from that as a result

    • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not necessarily. A lot of the harms disappear when everything goes open, which is what this person stands for, and what OpenAI was supposed to stand for.

      Open LLM + Open Training Data = Open AI

      Copyright and IP concerns disappear with an open dataset.

      Open models are inherently more trustworthy because of an obvious reduction in vendor lock-in.

      • skillissuer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Copyright and IP concerns disappear with an open dataset.

        i don’t think i’d agree with that, doesn’t matter if dataset goes open if content went there without consideration for authors

        also even things like thispersondoesnotexist were used to mass-create fake identities and such

        • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, but something like that would be super easy to find and fix without going through lawsuits. And I’d argue the dataset creators would be far less likely to add copyrighted material to the training data when it’s all out in the open and they can be immediately made to remove and retrain the AI without that data.

          • skillissuer
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            the problem with that is that training can’t be done “immediately” it takes tons of compute