←back to thread

114 points dworks | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source | bottom
Show context
tengbretson ◴[] No.44482169[source]
In the LLM intellectual property paradigm, I think this registers as a solid "Who cares?" level offence.
replies(7): >>44482174 #>>44482176 #>>44482191 #>>44482209 #>>44482275 #>>44482276 #>>44482505 #
1. some_random ◴[] No.44482275[source]
Claiming to care deeply about IP theft in the more nebulous case of model training datasets then dismissing the extremely concrete case of outright theft seems pretty indefensible to me.
replies(3): >>44482363 #>>44482381 #>>44482529 #
2. perching_aix ◴[] No.44482363[source]
Par for the course for emotional thinking, I'm not even surprised anymore.
3. Arainach ◴[] No.44482381[source]
Everyone has a finite amount of empathy, and I'm not going to waste any of mine on IP thieves complaining that someone stole their stolen IP from them.
replies(1): >>44483260 #
4. pton_xd ◴[] No.44482529[source]
> dismissing the extremely concrete case of outright theft seems pretty indefensible to me.

Outright theft is a meaningless term here. The new rules are different.

The AI space is built on "traditionally" bad faith actions. Misappropriation of IP by using pirated content and ignoring source code licenses. Borderline malicious website scraping. Recitation of data without attribution. Copying model code / artifacts / weights is just the next most convenient course of action. And really, who cares? The ethical operating standards of the industry have been established.

5. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.44483260[source]
It’s theft in the way taking a picture of nature that you had nothing to do with is theft.
replies(1): >>44483333 #
6. Arainach ◴[] No.44483333{3}[source]
This line of argument was worn out and tired when 14 year olds on Napster were parroting it in 1999.