I agree with you, but there is one aspect that is different here - the scale that is way beyond what any human can do.

I don't know what to think about that though.

Fair point. Think of it this way: the scale is more than any human, but it is probably akin to what humanity in general can do.

▲

sicher 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You might argue that since those LLMs build on all of humanity's knowledge, they should belong to everyone. But where do you draw the lines? Or make a practical case.

▲

brookst 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They kind of do belong to everyone. The technology and majority of training corpus is available to essentially everyone.

The training and inference infra are owned and operated, but I can't see an argument that any machine that processes public domain (or stolen, if you prefer) info should be available to everyone for free.

But those training and inference costs will go to zero. Think about your cell phone today versus $1m+ supercomputers in the 1980's.

We're living in a transitory blip where capitalists and gold rushers are getting rich arbitraging the cost of processing against the non-cost of corpus. We can argue about morals (it doesn't bother me much) but it is a narrow window and it will be remembered the way Compuserve is: a precursor to the actual revolution, worth a footnote.

	▲	sicher 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, that's what I mean by where to draw the line. An artist taking inspiration from others is not obliged to give up the work to the public. Sidenote: It may be tricky/impossible in the future to uphold intellectual property laws. If anyone is able (for instance) to prompt-create all their software, a software patent is worthless.

▲

sicher 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. And even if (when) AI surpasses humanity in general I don't know if that changes the argument.