Yeah cause all these frontier labs totally followed all relevant copyright and ip protection laws, so of course they'll follow your little contract, and what will be the consequences when it turns out they lied (again)? Oh maybe a fine, something fair like 0.5% of profits, can't make it too high or too anti business.

[dead]

that story remains ridiculous, and the RCMP is trying to pass the buck, when they already knew the issues and had confiscated the guns

... then gave them back, and then tbe shooting happened.

Would humans change their treatment of cattle if the cattle made louder noises? That seems doubtful.

That's not the "root", you can go at least one step further:

The wealthy CEOs and boardmembers found a way to make even more money, but know that it will make the people who are aware of it angry. So they, as a class, find other issues that they can enflame (or manufacture wholesale), through the manipulation of social media algorithms and legacy media, both of which they own and control. They would much rather have "ordinary people" angry about trans athletes or immigrants, than about the surveillance state they profit from, or stealing our data they profit from, etc...

Unfortunately, we humans are very easy to manipulate by making us angry. If "ordinary people don't make enough noises for any problems they see in life", its hardly our fault if we're too busy surviving in the current economy, and the elites are spending billions to make us angry about anything except the elites.

the root of the problem is that we have no data privacy laws.

Realistically, local/open weight models will always be limited in idiosyncratic world knowledge compared to the proprietary frontier. There's just very limited upside to releasing tens or hundreds of terabytes of open weights for something that literally can only run in very large AI data centers, and Fable/Mythos is near enough to that class. Smaller models can be smart in very real ways, but the extent to which those "smarts" can apply to real-world problems will be limited.

I don't think this makes much sense. The best filter is money and they're not going to go through this convoluted malarkey to limit their customers.

IMHO this is about protecting their model. If you can get a N-1 model for 1% of the N cost their business breaks down.

> It's tough to imagine what might possibly derail this.

Public utilities?

> The handful of megacorps that have access to the compute and troves of stolen IP to train their secret models on have no incentive to contribute back.

Meta and Anthropic both trained on pirated books and there were not required to destroy their models. I simply don't get it. It just encourages to do things first and see later what happens. Regulations are just a small business cost.

> They don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts

No, but they do have incentive to continue to release with open weights because doing so directly affects the US based labs that are doing this for profit and power.

What's likely to happen is import controls on software as a form of US protectionism. It will be the encryption battle all over again, but this time about your right to both run AI models locally on your own hardware (that the labs and big tech would love if you could continue to not able to afford or acquire so they can rent it to you), and a ban on the distribution and use of foreign models.

I wouldn't be surprised of Anthropic and OpenAI also successfully lobby for a limit on how big open source models can be in the US as well in the name of "safety."

Make no mistake, they all fully intend to pull the ladder up behind them, and they intend to do it soon.

Chinese open weight models will be forced to do the same to remain competitive with other frontier labs. The moat is data going forward.