Which of the following sounds more reasonable?

  • I shouldn’t have to pay for the content that I use to tune my LLM model and algorithm.

  • We shouldn’t have to pay for the content we use to train and teach an AI.

By calling it AI, the corporations are able to advocate for a position that’s blatantly pro corporate and anti writer/artist, and trick people into supporting it under the guise of a technological development.

  • Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The concepts themselves are some 30 years old, but storage capacity and processing speed have only recently reached a point where generative AI outperforms competing solutions.

    But regarding the regulation thing, I don’t know what was said or proposed, and this is just me playing devil’s advocate: but could it be that the CEO simply doesn’t agree with the specifics of the proposed regulations while still believing that some other, different kind of regulation should exist?

    • rainh@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Certainly could be, but probably an optimistic take. Most likely they’re just trying to do what corporations have been doing for ages, which is to weaponize government policy to prevent competition. They don’t want restrictions that will materially impact their product, they want restrictions that will materially impact startups to make it more difficult for them to intrude on the established space.

      • jumperalex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think if you fed your response into ChatGPT and asked it to summarize in two words it would return,

        “Regulatory Capture”