Or like providing the world’s information in machine readable format that the AI companies can convert into model weights without getting permission or compensating the rights holders

▲

rlpb 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't pay for my mind to absorb the world's information, either. And when I publish to the Internet, or give a talk, I also typically don't charge. Even when I publish under some kind of copyright restricted licence, that restriction has never (by law) extended to restricting transformative use that you might perform using your mind.

This idea that absorbing information requires paying a toll needs to change. It was never the case in copyright law anyway (and the courts are beginning to agree). Even if it were, copyright law was founded on the basis of encouraging creativity by creating an economic incentive. Appeal to "compensating the rights holders" therefore needs to be based on the economics, not just some principle about "rights" that never applied to this case anyway.

	▲	esailija 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean you probably cannot even do 284882 * 282817374 in your head, let alone billions of matrix multiplications so that argument doesn't make sense. If you used a trillion square feet of paper to do the calculations as extra steps to plagiarize something then it should be treated the same as doing it with a computer.

▲

red75prime a day ago | parent | prev [-]

"Your text batch moved the weights away from the final values. Your contribution is negative."

▲

ACCount37 a day ago | parent [-]

Where do I collect the $0.00000012 antidollars owed to me by OpenAI for my valuable inputs?

Slightly more seriously, you could perhaps make an argument that, just like weight decay, an apparent "anti-contribution" moves the learning trajectory along, and helps the network settle into a more optimal basin eventually.

That way, my contribution is still valuable on the net, and I'm owed $0.00000003 positive dollars instead.

	▲	Dilettante_ a day ago \| parent [-]
		>you could perhaps make an argument that, just like weight decay, an apparent "anti-contribution" moves the learning trajectory along Was that not the joke?