YHK - yet another hacker news clone

There are no open-source LLMs.

What is DD supposed to mean?

Nit: Please don’t use obscure acronyms when writing things to an international audience without defining them first… DD can mean so many different things

> With regulation and compensation, only rich companies would be able to do that

Well, with some imagination, you can have regulation that forces companies to open up, not just close down.

Imagine a law that stipulates that if you want to offer "LLM-inference-as-a-service", you need to also publish exact details about how it was trained, what datasets were used and also offer those exact weights for download.

Sure, this would never happen, but just offering another perspective on how laws and regulation can be used if it was wanted, locking stuff down and pulling up the ladder behind you isn't the only way to use laws, although that is a very popular reason and approach.

We don’t have to treat people reading books and companies stealing all human knowledge the same.

Also, companies spent a long time telling us downloading single songs via Napster was the worst thing ever, before torrenting every book in existence themselves. I don’t believe any of these companies have paid for all the books they have trained on.

Culture robbery is not limited to AI. Any big concert for example is capitalismed to hell. So are neighborhoods. Where you used to have people just living, now you have an intentionally designed facade for people to live within. There was a comment on the 40C3 thread saying it's got too capitalist because of the ticket cost, and idk about that because it's always been hosted in commercial venues to my knowledge, but the vibe of the conference and the club itself are much less rebel than they used to be. Stuff like Burning Man now exists for people like Elon to go there and say "I was at Burning Man" and for people to get T-shirts saying "I was at Burning Man" and photos of themselves being at Burning Man more than for whatever the first few ones were about.

Well theres at least two different buckets of this.

First is the scraping of the open internet.

The second is the paywall bypassing, YouTube audio recording, and pirated content training that the labs have basically admitted to in one form or another.

Content from both gets served back to us, in exchange for watching ads/paying a subscription/paying tokens.

The second is more immediately hypocritical because they are license/copyright/DMCA violations that the little guy could get sued for while the labs get $2T valuations for. The automation of crime at scale, which is a common VC pattern.

> Would regulation help with that? Right now you can download free models that have been trained on that "stolen" data

We do have regulation against these issues. Companies spent years railing against piracy and IP theft enshrining it into law but now that it's being done by them en masse it's considered acceptable. The reality is that no regulation would help because we don't have regulators willing to enforce it nor do we have a legal system designed to help individuals against mass theft by corporations.

> and they would definitely not give it back for free.

...not like they are doing it for free now either.

open-weight is an economic war strategy of trying to undermine your competitors and prevent it from rising prices, thus preventing profit, driving them out of business.

> I put "stolen" in quotation marks because it's still unclear if we can call that stealing

It never was stealing: you can't steal a book by copying it. You can however commit copyright infringement.

This blatant disregard of licenses and copyright is clearly infringing on the authors ability to make a profit from their work, which was the whole point of copyright.

They knew it too, which is why they said nothing about the pirating and infringing until they got too big to fail.

So now we are left discussing and wasting time on what technically counts as infringing, pirating, stealing and whatnot.

All the while the small authors who can't possibly lawyer up against the literal biggest corporations on earth will just have to shut up.

Yet, somehow they had deals with Disney and other big names, proving that they did actually feel they need approval.

Their actions are two-faced, thus proving malice. Now we can go back to pointless technicalities.

Defending the same entities getting large DoD contracts to use AI for killing?

But it's copying...how is it theft? Your labour WASNT stolen was it?