Because Swartz didn’t have a legion of expensive lawyers at his disposal. ☹️
Because Swartz wanted a free and open web and the powers that be wanted control over every major social media website. This was around the same that moot showed up in Epstein’s emails and would later sell his site. All in the run up to the 2016 election. Now think about how /r/thedonald stayed on the site for so long.
Because Swartz was merely a natural person, while Meta is an almighty corporation. Everybody knows only corporations deserve rights, duh!
the profits have spoken
Moral of the story never do anything as an individual by your name. Do it as a multi-billion dollar company with a battalion of lawyers and have fall guys. At minimum have an LLC controlled by a trust in someone else’s name doing anything actionable in court.
Remember companies are people even though they can’t get arrested and giving large sums of money to politicians is free speech, not bribery or corruption.
The anti-piracy efforts of the RIAA and MPAA (and the publishing houses and…) are still pretty robust, but that didn’t stop any of the big AI companies from using gigatons of copyrighted material as datasets to train their LLMs. It’s why when you ask them to generate an image featuring Winnie The Pooh, they all know what you’re talking about.
But the big companies absolutely did not get permission to do this. Nor did anyone give permission to allow for the recent jailbreaks by AI task systems to hack into other companies. If that were any singular human (not of the owner class) they’d face charges under the CFAA. But since it’s a massive company with an army of blue-haired lawyers, nothing was done about it, and the companies actually bragged about their AIs escaping containment.
Extinction by AI takeover is far more interesting than extinction by global drought.
Aaron was not charged with scraping public servers, he was charged with unauthorized access. He “hacked” the server. Meta just scraped publicly accessible information.
Bruh, can you lick metas boots any harder? There’s so many examples of them using unauthorized access even long before llm’s were a thing…but even if that wasn’t the case, they just fucking bragged about their “ai” hacking other companies. Stop spreading lies for the billionaires, it’s pathetic.
Take it easy. artyom might just be mistaken you don’t need to turn it into a class war.
I am not “licking boots”, I am discussing facts. And I’m gonna keep doing it.
There’s so many examples of them using unauthorized access even long before llm’s were a thing
Sure, there’s an endless list of awful things they’ve done, but that’s not what’s being discussed here.
I’m not talking about random awful things they’ve done I’m talking specifically about unauthorized access issues which is literally what you named as being the difference. Get some reading comprehension.
I’m talking specifically about unauthorized access issues which is literally what you named as being the difference.
Correct, that is the difference between what I said and what the author said. The author is talking about scraping. Get some reading comprehension. You don’t even have to read the article, it’s literally in the title.
The article is trash, we’re talking about your comment, hence why I replied to you. You lied just like the article did.
Not sure if we’re saying harvesting data is good or bad…
Stealing is bad but we celebrate Robin Hood because he stole from the corrupt and gave to the needy
Obviously fuck Meta, but the difference is the publishing. Scraping and copying for personal or business use is a civil matter. And machine learning from unlicensed material is also fine - as long as the material isn’t “memorized” and an AI model can’t reproduce it.
Aaron bravely published the papers which is a criminal matter. That is why I believe copyright and IP law is the real theft, they take down copies for people to learn from.
There are many many millions of people who read and learned from pirated textbooks and who use those skills to do things. Who watched pirated amines or comics use that to learn how to draw.
Basically we should not be siding with the unethical side of IP law just to oppose AI corporations. They can afford to buy the books and media, and a simple purchase will do. And they can afford the lawsuits. And they will figure out the memorization problem, so that AI models learn but not memorize (which is only happens in like 1% of the cases and only when you specifically ask for something “just like that”).
China (so far) is saying that the AI models they produce should be open weight and be available to all people on earth. So if we have any issues it should be with the monopolization of AI models that concentrate this new developing immense power of AI in the hands of a few plutocrats. Which the IP laws might actually help them with.
Basically we should not be siding with the unethical side of IP law just to oppose AI corporations.
Why not? There is nothing ethical under capitalism. The system is literally destroying the planet. Normal people need to use whatever tools they can just to have a chance.
Lets say IP law is extended or reinterpreted to include that machine learning from book or papers or articles or comments requires a special license, even assuming the memorization problem is solved. This is what anti ai seems to be arguing.
This would then result in some kind of “deal”. Producers of AI models are required to pay some kind of overall license fee or percentage into some kind of public fund. Even Bernie Sanders suggested something like that. The problems I see:
- The AI corporations can afford this and it will not really impact them in any way. The prices for AI rise a little. Free access is reduced.
- Open Weight models may no longer be used freely. You could still pirate a Chinese one but while capitalists have access to any potential benefits in replacing labor with AI, for ordinary people it becomes an additional form of rent.
Also in combination with advances in robotics, these AI models could do a lot to allow people to become “independent” by just telling your $6000 robot (actual price for a humanoid robot in china today) to plant some potatoes and vegetables there there and there, then clean the house etc. Or DIY build your own out of plywood, servos and a smartphone once technology advances. - The government through that fund gains an active interest in protecting that source of incoming and increase AI use, even if it does replace workers.
This happened with the tobacco funds when vaping came around. Governments had leveraged the future payouts of these funds with banks for short term payouts and would have been in big trouble if vaping actually reduced smoking significantly.
Fuck what they did to that guy. We should have revolted then.
