Why not a "stop killing AI" movement?

If a company deploys a paid AI model and makes people depend on it, they need to dump the weights at EOL.

Arainach 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Where do people get ideas like this? In what world does this make sense?

You have several choices:

1. Work with a supplier and sign a contract guaranteeing support for whatever period of time you want at a mutually agreeable price

2. Host your own stack to depend on and support it for however long you want

3. Accept that you're paying for a service and that it can go away at any time.

Companies aren't obligated to support things forever and they aren't obligated to open them up when they no longer feel it's worth supporting them. Claiming they should is absurd.

▲

derektank 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>they aren't obligated to open them up when they no longer feel it's worth supporting them.

Creating a legal obligation to release the weights of discontinued models doesn’t seem absurd. These models are built on existing publicly available information; a requirement that it be returned to the commons once it is no longer in commercial use hardly seems like a substantial regulatory burden.

▲

kennywinker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, claiming the have a moral imperative to do it might be a bit of a stretch, but it sure would be nice - can’t blame people for wanting things.

▲

svachalek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a legal obligation, no, but neither should you as a customer accept a vendor that treats you like that.

	▲	Arainach 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're not going to find many people to do business with in the world if that's your bar.
	▲	verdverm 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> vendor that treats you like that You don't have to use Big Ai offerings, there are other options. Between deprecation and uncle sam, dependency/business risk appears to be increasing. It's a calculation and choice that comes with consequences any way you land.

▲

recursive an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you paid a one-time fee for an offline model, and then you were revoked access to it, that would apply.

If you are paying an ongoing subscription for a service, I'd advise you not to rely on it too much or keep a list of alternatives.

▲

wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are plenty of open weights models available already. If the ability to keep running the same model is important to you, then choose one of those.

▲

derektank 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Presumably, a “Stop Killing AI” movement, mirroring the Stop Killing Games movement, would require a provider that revokes access a previously available model to make it open weights at the time of death.

	▲	recursive an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		These are not analogous. If you paid for an offline model, and you were somehow revoked access because it was phoning home, that would be closer. If you were paying for an ongoing subscription for a service, that would be something different.
	▲	verdverm 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		On the surface, there appears a difference between buying a game and paying for llm processing time. You haven't bought the model, so it is unclear to me why the same argument ought to hold up.