There is a license that says that all derivatives must also be open source.
But also AI companies don’t care about the law, they stole all their data, engage in insider trading, circular trading, and generating all manner of illegal content, they don’t give a fuck. And the US government isn’t doing anything to hold them accountable, infact the president is getting in on it.
Obviously fuck the capitalists and AI scammers. But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It’s the wrong argument.
The answer obviously is to keep the actual source material and libraries and book archives open and just run open source AI models at home. You can run smaller versions on a solar powered PC no problem.
The issue with trying to make “AI is just stolen” happen is that it will make open source AI models illegal. AI companies would love that because they can afford to license and pay or work around or obscure or whatever. The “intellectual property” argument is always a disgusting capitalist one. Knowledge is either free or nothing is.
Every book ever published, every article anybody ever wrote, every comment anyone ever posted on a public internet is “consent” to read and learn from it.
I’m pro piracy as you can tell. The idea that something can be out there publicly on the internet but it’s “not consent” to read is the intellectual property one. Look at how they try to gatekeep publicly owned scientific papers. Big AI is clearly hypocritical doing this, but corporations are just soulless, amoral programs executed by sentient humans.
But the RESULT of all that (e.g. deepseek) should belong to all people. And THAT is why these IP arguments by fuckAI are dangerous, because it is only a threat to open models. The answer is open source (or weight) AI models and with advances in computing to run them locally.
I said no such thing. Private is private. I’m saying there is no such thing as public information, information that you put on the public internet, meaning for the public to see, then being somehow not “free”.
You can argue about copyright a little, I’m against it, but this has nothing to do with private messages or private information or data protection.
You’re just arguing a strawman and trying to make the discussion about something else and an ad hominem calling me a troll.
All I said in the original comment was stolen data and you are the one that decided I meant “public data available to on the open Internet” and started arguing against that. Who is arguing with a strawman here?
There is a license that says that all derivatives must also be open source.
But also AI companies don’t care about the law, they stole all their data, engage in insider trading, circular trading, and generating all manner of illegal content, they don’t give a fuck. And the US government isn’t doing anything to hold them accountable, infact the president is getting in on it.
Obviously fuck the capitalists and AI scammers. But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It’s the wrong argument.
The answer obviously is to keep the actual source material and libraries and book archives open and just run open source AI models at home. You can run smaller versions on a solar powered PC no problem.
The issue with trying to make “AI is just stolen” happen is that it will make open source AI models illegal. AI companies would love that because they can afford to license and pay or work around or obscure or whatever. The “intellectual property” argument is always a disgusting capitalist one. Knowledge is either free or nothing is.
Library implies consent that was not there and access to the public that was not there.
Every book ever published, every article anybody ever wrote, every comment anyone ever posted on a public internet is “consent” to read and learn from it.
I’m pro piracy as you can tell. The idea that something can be out there publicly on the internet but it’s “not consent” to read is the intellectual property one. Look at how they try to gatekeep publicly owned scientific papers. Big AI is clearly hypocritical doing this, but corporations are just soulless, amoral programs executed by sentient humans.
But the RESULT of all that (e.g. deepseek) should belong to all people. And THAT is why these IP arguments by fuckAI are dangerous, because it is only a threat to open models. The answer is open source (or weight) AI models and with advances in computing to run them locally.
Every gps ping your phone sells to ad companies? Every nanny cam that is connected to the cloud?
Public information vs private information
Are you a troll, you just said their is no such thing.
I said no such thing. Private is private. I’m saying there is no such thing as public information, information that you put on the public internet, meaning for the public to see, then being somehow not “free”.
You can argue about copyright a little, I’m against it, but this has nothing to do with private messages or private information or data protection.
You’re just arguing a strawman and trying to make the discussion about something else and an ad hominem calling me a troll.
All I said in the original comment was stolen data and you are the one that decided I meant “public data available to on the open Internet” and started arguing against that. Who is arguing with a strawman here?