On a similar note I keep thinking that having your "content" used as training material for a model ought to entitle you to a proportional stake.
The funny thing about all of this is that it's basically taking revenue from the major media companies to the benefit of OpenAI's customers more than OpenAI itself, which is exactly the redistribution of wealth people seem to be demanding, but that's not how it gets characterized because the media companies are the ones characterizing it.
And there is some case to be made that disincentivizing human content creation is bad, but what that case really looks like is the argument against having the AI users free ride on an investment made by Sony or Comcast. Then what their proposals end up looking like is a tax paid by everyone where the money goes to those huge corporations. And of all the things we shouldn't do about this, that's the thing we shouldn't do the most.
Eh. Most LLM output is significantly transformative. The challenge here is that some of the output is similar enough to a work in the training data that it could reasonably be considered derivative. And evaluating whether it is when you have both of them in front of you isn't even the hard part.
The real problem, from the perspective of LLM users, is that you don't know when it's happening because you haven't seen the original work to notice how similar it is to a particular output, and now maybe you have problems if you start making copies of it.
> The big corporations won the fight on file-sharing so they ought to at least be accountable to their own legal arguments.
Those big corporations are the likes of Sony and Comcast. They're the ones who would prefer to be able to sue OpenAI. But that's also the thing which is trash, because if the money went only to them then it's just propping up the incumbents while spitting on small independent content creators who get nothing. Whereas if you actually included everybody then we're back to ~$3/year and it's not even worth the administrative costs compared to just having them pay ordinary taxes on their profits to the extent that they eventually have any.
You've really lost the plot.
Sounds great! If I'm a worker who owns the means of production and I want to sell that stake to someone else, am I allowed to do so? If not, do I actually "own" anything?
And before any "uuuuh this can't work uuuh people want to get rich uuuh", you are literally talking about the community that has made open source software, the most commie thing imaginable on earth.
Free market capitalism won't save us from a future were automation reaches a point that it creates a large, unemployable underclass. And that's the future the tech and business elite have been promising us (at least until they belatedly realized that was the quiet part they shouldn't be saying out loud).
I'm going to take their word on those promises, when considering regulation to constrain them.
> Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism. There's still time to correct course without that nonsense being involved.
I would like a communism that is basically capitalism, but with the capital more-or-less evenly distributed among the workers. Keep a lot of the economic system, but replace it with other things: mutuals, worker-owned businesses, maybe 50-50 JVs between labor and investors, some "all of the above" combination, etc.
Watch out, you're almost sounding like the "not real communism" boys.
>Both have their issues, but nothing compared to communism.
Some would say leaving a few million people die of thirst and hunger every year because it's "not profitable to fix it", or having a population of dozens of millions in your own country suffering of mental health problems, inability to get basic healthcare or even living conditions for the past 50 years might be a sign that your favorite system is fundamentally immoral, but hey.
cuba has a longer life expectancy than the US despite all of that btw
Yeah, won't anyone think of the poor oligarchs, openly fantasizing about creating a permanent underclass?
And the only thing that didn't work out well in the past was central planning by state-owned businesses with 20th century technology. The structure I proposed is nothing like that.
We're not talking about widows with a pension who are just interested in dividends. This isn't some utility.
What you need here is antitrust enforcement and lower barriers to entry so that there are more companies that are each smaller, and correspondingly more millionaires and fewer billionaires.
A progressive tax would, no? You could explicitly tax larger entities more.
How many entities is "Google"? Is it one or is Search one company and Android another and YouTube another and so on? If they need to get the size of each unit below some threshold they can just file more LLCs.
Just use the size of the parent company, you say? Okay, which is the parent company, Google or Vanguard? If it's Vanguard then every public company exceeds the largest size threshold. If it isn't, they can use something which is formally an investment fund as the parent company and get as big as they want.
And even if you could do it, you would then create a perverse incentive for the government, because then breaking up those large companies into smaller ones would reduce tax revenue. When you should just break them up to begin with and actually solve the problem.
It seems like that just supercharges brain drain by incentivizing all the smartest and richest people to just move away to a place with lower taxes and less bureaucracy.
if the trend remains without the USD being the reserve currency then maybe? Id lean as a first guess that easy access to lots of free money is the bigger driver