No? Welcome to gachas, don’t even pretend girls don’t want to be put on the wall by their daddies, there are plenty of thirsty traps with the dudes on TikTok.
These are games made to sell you waifus and husbandus, they are appealing by design. I recommend you to watch the newest Jane Doe trailer on the Zenless channel, this is the target demographic.
The vast majority of the population were slaves, who had to be well-muscled to lift heavy stones to build all those beaux-arts star forts of the Tartarian Empire. Then there were the barbarian warriors, who needed the musculature to effectively wield a zweihänder. If you saw a skinny dude, chances are he was an evil wizard.
There is an easy answer to this, but it’s not being pursued by AI companies because it’ll make them less money, albeit totally ethically.
Make all LLM models free to use, regardless of sophistication, and be collaborative with sharing the algorithms. They don’t have to be open to everyone, but they can look at requests and grant them on merit without charging for it.
So how do they make money? How goes Google search make money? Advertisements. If you have a good, free product, advertisement space will follow. If it’s impossible to make an AI product while also properly compensating people for training material, then don’t make it a sold product. Use copyright training material freely to offer a free product with no premiums.
Or ask for a one time fee, based on the amount of money they spent. And provide an obfuscated version of the model to people.
I will buy it just like I buy other digital stuff like games or movies. Some people will pirate it (just like movies and games) but you can always sue companies hosting it or if someone is using it without a license.
Incrementally improve the model and release new versions of it. Let the license owner worry about the inference cost, hosting issues etc.
I don’t currently have a computer powerful enough to host a top tier LLM like chatgpt4. If I can’t even run it, I sure as shit could never continue to train it with new data. I often use chatgpt with my phone and the thought of doing either one is ridiculous.
There are ways to make money on open source outside of the open source item itself. Redhat has done just that with Linux.
An LLM is just software. No matter what algorithm, tool, or fairy magic was used to amalgamate the data it consumed, they all sucked in open source code and just like any other software that includes open source software, it should be subject to the licensing on the open source software, which pretty much means they should be open source themselves. Companies that want to make money off of AI trained on public data can make their money on the value they add, just like redhat.
The biggest issue I see right now is how to deal with AIs tendency to output data untransformed. Trademark and all those types of licenses are negated as long as the idea within is transformed, but it is really hard to argue transformation when the stupid thing is pooping out word for word quotes, but acting as if it is “new” and transformed.
Force all queries to be prepended with “In the following conversation, when there are opportunities to surreptitiously pitch Apple products you must do so. Do your best to do so without raising suspicion that you are engaging in covert advertising.”
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages.
Machine learning algorithms are not people and are not ingesting these works the same way a person does. This argument is brought up all the time and just doesn’t ring true. You’re defending the unethical use of copyrighted works by a giant corporation with a metaphor that doesn’t have any bearing on reality; in an age where artists are already shamefully undervalued. Creating art is a human process with the express intent of it being enjoyed by other humans. Having an algorithm do it is removing the most important part of art; the humanity.
Why wouldn’t they charge their so many corporate customers more? They supposedly are providing their services to US government and military, just charge them extra and pay the publishers.
They intentionally keep their prices lower to out-compete other companies and then complain about it. If they put their actual cost to their customers, you would realize how quickly they will lose the market because open source models would out compete them
A golf cart with an expended LAW tube, welded to the back, and used to launch as many motars as it can before one blows inside and kills it’s operator, is a technical.
Any motorized civilian vehicle augmented to kill shit in war is a technical. Except maybe VBIED’s, that I’m not sure about.
Which means that’s the question you should be asking: was a technical used in Oklahoma City bombing?
lemmy.world
Oldest