Surely they will be sued into oblivion if they tried right? Them being non profit was the main pillar holding up their defense for scraping the web into datasets.

"root access is used to bypass security measures!!!! We will make it harder to root your phones to keep your data safe" – Google

The problem is though that the attested platform only accepts Google play as a store, for this to be truly fair you'd need a way to set a default store setting up and then the attestation API checks that store, but as things currently are it's giving Google play store an unfair advantage.

Unless they make a deal behind closed doors

laptop

You're paying a lot of money for the portability.

Or don't max settings

Pfff that makes more sense, I'm sorry @jabjoe@feddit.uk

They are, but we've mostly got our subconscious doing it still, it's not that we're always doing big tasks we just have dedicated processes for it, so maybe that's one way to tackle the problem, specialised processes for sorting data types that engages the main process to do the processing of said data.

I mean if anything, look at Velcro and how generalising a term makes it untrademarkeable. Overusing words can and will screw companies.

Don't let a word have that much power over your life

Extend GDPR or create a similar framework. It's also why I said "or disincentivising", if we can make it a good pr move to license from artists and provide a system to do so through easily while admonishing companies that don't use it we could get the bad pr to be too much compared to weaseling around the licensing

You do that by banning or disincentivising the less ethical option, the moment it's less economically viable, they'll pivot, unless it isn't an option.

Again, regulation doesn't imply current giants get to still reap the rewards of that training data. Look at how GDPR affected data storage and acquisition retroactively. Assuming only one is possible is a false narrative.

Public facing doesn't mean open source. We've had this discussion before on GitHub accessible source code. Just because it's available to peruse doesn't mean one is allowed to process that image and create derivates based on its data. Weird thing to point out about translation, do you have any idea who I am or are you just regurgitating talking points? How do you know whether I was/am offended by translators being replaced or not?

I'm confused about the open source bit, what costs? I feel like you're not explaining a key connection in your argument. If the barrier to development overall is acquiring data ethically saying that is a stance against open source is misleading, as it's against any kind of such development not just the open source kind. We have museums and library full of public domain works, it most definitely is enough, it's just not as commercially appealing as modern works, so if given the choice of course companies will choose the path that gives them more rewards especially when we don't punish them for copyright infringement when they do.

You make it sound like LLMs are the best thing since sliced bread and should be pursued at all costs no matter how much it steps on the little guys in the process, but my question is why? We live in a world plagued by costs of living, atrocities, and other fixable things, sure this advanced text and image prediction stuff is a fun toy but will it actually improve the quality of life of people? Artists and writers already struggle more than your usual workers to get good pay for their time, this stuff might be sometimes touted as democratising art or something but it's clearly not the main outcome from putting this kind of tool out in a world where capitalising on your skills is what gives people a roof over their heads. In such a world it's only worsening peoples quality of life in exchange for a bit of fun and some performance improvements at work.

And please don't call me "mad", don't imply I'm clouded by emotions when I'm most surely providing clear statements. Throughout this I've been arguing against your points, but you've been arguing against a made up persona that you've attributed to me too. Go argue with those people and when you're ready to engage me then argue against my points.

It's not hard to figure out, it's just not economically viable to set up a system for it when the alternative is just not worrying about ethics and doing it anyway. We struggle to get companies to pay slightly more for recycled plastic than virgin plastic, this isn't any different.

Are you done putting words in my mouth? Where did I say anything from the arguments you're fighting against? I couldn't give less of a shit what open ai wants, I'm not fighting for open ai, I'm fighting for all the artists who've been told again and again copyright infringement against big corpos is a no-no but now we have companies doing the same thing to them and it's treated as an inevitability. For all I care open ai should be investigated for profiting from data they acquired through the loophole of being non-profit.

What do any of the concerns over the way data acquisition happens have to do with open source? Open source the software, acquire the data ethically. Prosecute anyone using datasets with unlawfully acquired data to the same extent you'd prosecute copyright infringement because that's what it is. No middle ground. There's a shit ton of data in the public domain, use that instead of scouring artstation and written books from living writers. Is it not easy to sort or of less quality? Boohoo. If you want better data pay the artists and writers.

Instead of this doomerposting "we're gonna get the short stick either way might as well get something fun out of it" is exactly why we're having our livelihoods trampled over.

"it's too hard to respect copyright of all the little guys so we'll just not" is an insane take. If you can't do it ethically don't do it at all.

It's because France doesn't recognise rape on a consent basis, it does so based on the matter of forceful penetration, i.e: the person needs to resist it. At least that's what I read in a different article. It's fucked up.

Looks like a neoliberal copy of what happened in the UK elections recently where labour did the same tactics without promising big changes where it actually matters so they won not because people wanted them but because people didn't want the opposition to win. Now they're struggling with public reception because they forgot their main voter base.

And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone's keeping money for later and nothings flowing.

No they won't (or at least they shouldn't), it's meant to be local