LOL

  • thefluffiest@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    FUD, just to distract from the crushing multibillion dollar defeat they’ve just been dealt. First stage of grief: denial. Second: anger. Third: bargaining. We’re somewhere between 2 and 3 right now.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Nope, it’s definitely true, but sensationalism. Almost all models are trained using gpt

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Yeah, and? WTF are you chuckle fucks gonna do about it? Whine and complain without a hint of irony? Because that’s all this is. Because there’s not a goddamn thing you can do about it, and you hate that. Not to mention the hit to your nearly bottomless wallets. Cry more emo kid, your suffering sustains me.

  • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Womp womp. I’m sure openAI asked for permission from the creators for all its training data, right? Thief complains about someone else stealing their stolen goods, more at 11.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Oh are we supposed to care about substantial evidence of theft now? Because there’s a few artists, writers, and other creatives that would like to have a word with you…

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Your point OpenAI? Weren’t you part of the group saying training AI wasn’t copyright infringement? Not so happy when it’s your shit being copied? Huh. Weird.

    • qarbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      The only concern is how much the cost of training the model changes if it got a significant kickstart from previous, very-expensive training. I was interested because it was said to be comparable for a fraction of the cost. "Open"AI can suck sand.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Training is transformative use. Same reason I don’t care which DVDs they show the draw-anything robot.

    If I somehow stole ChatGPT’s weights and pruned them to one-tenth their size, that’d be on-par with leaking the source code to a game. Any support would be yo-ho-ho vigilante justice kinds of support.

    But I just point my chatbot at your chatbot, and mine winds up better and smaller… tough shit.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    OpenAI’s mission statement is also in their name. The fact that they have a proprietary product that is not open source is criminal and should be sued out of existence. They are now just like the Sun Micro after Apache was made open sourced; irrelevant they just haven’t gotten the memo yet. No company can compete against the whole world.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      i agree FOSS is the way to go, and that OpenAI has a lot to answer for… but FOSS is not the only way to interpret “open”

      the “open” was never intended as open source - it was open access. the idea was that anyone should have access to build things using AI; that it shouldn’t be for only megacorps who had the pockets to train… which they have, and still are doing

      they also originally intended that all their research and patents would be open, which i believe they’re still doing

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      That is what I mean, it’s a difference between an AI with robbed content in its knowledge/lenguage base and an AI assistant which only search iformation in the web to answer, linking to the corresponding pages. Way more intelligent and ethic use of an AI.