• 0 Posts
  • 234 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle




  • It is defined legally in the EU

    https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

    https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/

    There are different requirements if the provider falls under “Free and open licence GPAI model providers”

    Which is legally defined in that piece of legislation

    otherwise companies will get the benefits of “open source” without doing the actual work.

    Meta has done a lot for Open source, to their credit. React Native is my preferred framework for mobile development, for example.

    Again- I fully acknowledge they are a large evil megacorp but without evil large megacorps we would not have Open Source as we know it today. There are certain realities we need to accept based on the system we live in. Open Source only exists because corporations benefit off of this shared infrastructure.

    Our laws should encourage this type of behavior and not restrict it. By limiting the scope, it gives Meta less incentive to open source the code behind their AI models. We want the opposite. We want to incentivize



  • I agree with you. What I’m saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between “not open source” “partially open source” and “fully open source”

    right now it’s just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them

    i’m not saying change the definition of open source. i’m saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available

    especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright


  • Yes, but that model would never compete with the models that use copyrighted data.

    There is a unfathomably large ocean of copyrighted data that goes into the modern LLMs. From scraping the internet to transcripts of movies and TV shows to tens of thousands of novels, etc.

    That’s the reason they are useful. If it weren’t for that data, it would be a novelty.

    So do we want public access to AI or not? How do we wanna do it? Zuck’s quote from article “our legal framework isn’t equipped for this new generation of AI” I think has truth to it


  • This is essentially what Llama does, no? The reason they are attempting a clarification is because they would be subject to different regulations depending on whether or not it’s open source.

    If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as “open source” for legal purposes? The difference can be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU according to Meta.

    So a clarification on this issue, I think, is not asking for so much. Hate Facebook as much as the next guy but this is like 5 minute hate material


  • when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it’s a valid question.

    one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts

    of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address that don’t fit into our current IP legal framework

    my preferred solution is just to eliminate IP entirely




  • or is there some other narrative

    I believe a couple different things

    a) he’s intentionally weakening the US economy to both weaken establishment institutions and spread mass discontent. he wants people nice and angry and fearful for the future. so when he takes more extreme actions later on, it doesn’t seem as bad. also he’s probably preparing for some sort of riot movement that includes political violence in the next couple years. as the establishment gets weaker, he’ll be in a better position to essentially ignore them. so for example Supreme Court says something unconstitutional? Maybe he just ignores it and enforces his will regardless

    b) in the near future we may see a serious decoupling of the US economy from the world. maybe it’s due a planned war or some other circumstance and this is in preparation for that. tariffs tend to cut off the economy from the outside world. it’ll hurt less later on if we do some of it now






  • exactly. it escalates over time as things become normalized.

    if there are 10 stages we’re like at stage 3

    in 2016 we were at stage 1. back then, Trump wouldn’t dare have said “immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country” - that wouldn’t have had a good reception back then. too on the nose. but you start with more subtle things and slowly you shift the overton window of what is and isn’t socially acceptable

    it’s a treadmill and we’re jogging


  • Yes, for most of my life I thought we would never get rid of the illegals for precisely this reason. They are so integrated into our economy that eliminating them would cause a huge fallout. Almost 15 million people here. And they’re dramatically over-represented in specific industries.

    So for example, you mentioned food. Agriculture, especially in the SW, runs on illegal labor. Construction all over the country runs on illegal labor. The people washing dishes at restaurants, the people cleaning up offices at night, the people working at landscaping companies, etc.

    All of those industries are about to experience a severe supply shock of labor. This is going to mean increased prices for food, for landscaping, for construction, etc. Not only that, the services are going to be increasingly harder to staff. It’s really hard to find an American willing to relocate to rural areas to dig holes. It’s hard to find ones that are willing to pick fruit, etc.

    Not to mention the effect that 15 million less consumers eating at local restaurants, buying products from Amazon, paying rent, will have.

    And the worst part of it, the part that scares me, is that I’m certain Trump and his allies know this. They are entirely aware of the potential consequences of what they are doing. It does not take an economic savant to understand this and certainly Trump has some very smart advisors around him. So they are aware and they are doing it anyway.

    What does that imply? That means they are willing to nuke our economy for this (throw in tariffs too while we’re at it). And when I say nuke I mean nuke- there’s no going back after this. We’re causing permanent long-term structural damage. Why would he be willing to do this?

    I fear because there’s a lot worse on the horizon. Global war will overshadow the economic fallout from these decisions and will be pointed to as the cause of the near-future economic woes. Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here, but this is not a good omen. It’s sort of like suicidal people giving away all their money before they off themselves. It’s a red flag.

    I think we’re fucked with a capital F


  • but as long as he’s hurting non-whites they will sit around giving each other rage handies and praising him

    What I find fascinating is the right-wing illegal immigration latinos who support Trump. Up until now they’ve been saying “He’s not going to deport us, he’s deporting the criminals”. I just read a news article about half of the people they’ve arrested so far did not have any criminal records.

    White House press secretary goes live the other day and says “We’re going to deport all of them. They’re all criminals as far as I’m concerned”

    I think people have this instinctual burning desire to feel part of an “in-group” and to hate against an “out-group”. It’s such a strong burning desire that people will jump through so many mental hoops even when they are in the “out-group”.

    Note that being illegal is not a crime. It’s like when you get a parking ticket. It’s against the law but it isn’t a criminal violation. But of course the administration doesn’t care and neither does the army of rabid Americans cheering on the destruction of the country.