Maybe you should not have published it for free if you wanted to be paid. CC-NC and similar licenses only apply to derivative works if copyright law applies in the first place. But you could have still paywalled your site if you wanted.
So you want them to pay the host websites for scrapping their publicly shared content? Or give attribution to how this is forming its opinion?
It's narrow take I think, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?
I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give us open source models..
But who said it's harmful overall? That's a statement you are making not the people deriving value from it. The fact is many are benefiting otherwise they wouldn't pay that subscription.
In number 4 of the author's definition of parasite, the parasite kills the host not benefit it.
I guess that analogy would be people stop sharing their thoughts publicly, which is as likely as people stop sharing on social media, very unlikely for many reasons.
I think you have the mechanism of the pop wrong. IMO, the bubble will pop because of value competition from open source / non-frontier models. This will kill the margin of OpenAI/Anthropic, popping their valuation. Without access to capital, they will slash their training budget, killing demand for B200's etc. But the same low price that pops the bubble will make demand for inference explode, along with demand for efficient inference chips, like Tensor.
> I think it comes from a misreading of Marx because Marx considers value coming from Labor which is purely zero sum.
Don't you think it's a bit overconfident to dismiss Marx just on such a simplistic interpretation (as he had simply failed to consider that economic activity can be non-zero-sum?)
I mean, if you really extend that line of thinking, human beings are parasites in general. We are just sucking up all the resources to make more Walmarts and McDonald's. It would then be fair to say that humans should be dislodged from the earth and should never have attached to it in the first place. However, that would be a simplistic and rather naive view of how society works and does not have a solid moral standing behind the argument other than an emotional appeal: "THE ROBOTS ARE STEALING OUR HUMANITY!!!"
Rather, why not go deeper? Why not look at the world around you and see what incentives we've built up that allow us to plow trillions of dollars into this without a second thought. We've seen the bust cycles happen and yet here we are: going all-in on a potential technology that might/might not work out as we are hoping it will. If it truly works out as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster. If it doesn't work as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster.
Yet the Darios and Altmans of the world always find a way.
aogaili | an hour ago
bigwheels | an hour ago
aogaili | an hour ago
dudebro69420 | an hour ago
4MOAisgoodenuf | an hour ago
gridspy | an hour ago
brainwad | an hour ago
Enough with the IP maximalism, it's perfectly fine to extract non-copyrightable ideas from copyrighted works.
someonebaggy | an hour ago
brainwad | an hour ago
someonebaggy | an hour ago
aogaili | an hour ago
Society/governments need to figure out another way to take back from those companies and give to the public.
brainwad | an hour ago
someonebaggy | 43 minutes ago
aogaili | an hour ago
It's narrow take I think, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?
I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give us open source models..
otreblatercero | an hour ago
Parasites are mostly bad for health.
1298-12236 | an hour ago
aogaili | an hour ago
someonebaggy | an hour ago
salawat | 56 minutes ago
sailingparrot | an hour ago
So your entire premise is false.
simianwords | an hour ago
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
aogaili | an hour ago
sailingparrot | an hour ago
Your point was that parasites give nothing back, thus AI companies can’t be seen as parasites because we get some usefulness out of them.
My only point is that argument is false, since a host can get benefits out of a parasite.
aogaili | an hour ago
I guess that analogy would be people stop sharing their thoughts publicly, which is as likely as people stop sharing on social media, very unlikely for many reasons.
gridspy | an hour ago
- Companies using investment funds to play the Ai Agent lottery will run out of funds
- Less tokens will be demanded, causing AI companies to raise prices to pay for overheads
- Bubble pops.
10xDev | an hour ago
Meanwhile NVDA go brrrrr.
inknight | an hour ago
MengerSponge | an hour ago
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/09/remain-solvent/
simianwords | an hour ago
(for equivalency of tokens I'd use something like "tasks done by AI")
bryanlarsen | an hour ago
simianwords | an hour ago
I think it comes from a misreading of Marx because Marx considers value coming from Labor which is purely zero sum.
In my bubble within friends and family, practically everyone uses AI and has fun using it and gets value out of it.
SoftTalker | an hour ago
My non-tech friends use AI to make funny meme images that they send around on group chats, but would they pay for those? I doubt it.
I can't think of anything in my personal life that I would pay for an AI to do. Businesses, sure... as long as they are getting real value.
robotpepi | an hour ago
Don't you think it's a bit overconfident to dismiss Marx just on such a simplistic interpretation (as he had simply failed to consider that economic activity can be non-zero-sum?)
simianwords | an hour ago
senko | an hour ago
[0] literally; even this comment violates a few
altmanaltman | an hour ago
Rather, why not go deeper? Why not look at the world around you and see what incentives we've built up that allow us to plow trillions of dollars into this without a second thought. We've seen the bust cycles happen and yet here we are: going all-in on a potential technology that might/might not work out as we are hoping it will. If it truly works out as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster. If it doesn't work as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster.
Yet the Darios and Altmans of the world always find a way.
discreteevent | 35 minutes ago