Comment by chii
9 hours ago
> They should pay a fair amount.
they should pay the marginal value that the next buyer would buy.
Do you also think that a person dying of thirst ought to pay the maximum price they could possibly pay for water?
9 hours ago
> They should pay a fair amount.
they should pay the marginal value that the next buyer would buy.
Do you also think that a person dying of thirst ought to pay the maximum price they could possibly pay for water?
> the marginal value that the next buyer would buy
Well the argument is that they should pay for the right to produce derivative works not for the physical copy.
Given the specific of the "derived works" being produced, do you feel obliged to pay royalties every time you cite or use some knowledge acquired from a book during your daily life?
Well no, but I'm a human and not a commercial computer program so it's not particularly relevant. I'm would not be making loads of money making those citations either but that's only secondary.
> derived works
It's not evident that any works are being produced in the legal sense. Since LLM outputs are not considered copyrightable it's probably closer to using a search engine.
It might be me but I fail to see the equivalence of AI companies with thirst deaths. That', or maybe because it's a strawman.
The point is that you can buy a book for a few bucks, read it, and have its insights completely available to you. But people are demanding that LLM companies pay far more to publishers for the same copies
You can also buy a book produce a large number of copies after jumbling around some chapters sell it to other people. That's illegal to do if you are person but not if you an AI company.
I suppose an argument might be made for fair use if they released their model weights publicly without financially profiting from it.
If Elon Musk is dying of thirst then the price of that glass of water is set at (pinky to side of mouth) one million dollars.
Doing that would be considered deeply immoral and sociopathic in any sane culture. Do you really want to live in a society that finds such attitudes acceptable?
Instead of blindly jumping on a manipulated outrage bandwagon, people would do well to maybe read some of those old books, not even the rare ones - they tend to contain plenty of parables and stories explaining basics of morality and civilized conduct. We used to teach that to kids at homes and in primary education...
Money is relative, though. I guess the question is if it's acceptable to charge a tiny symbolic fee for that cup of water if the other person's pockets are visibly overflowing with cash. If yes then it's more than reasonably to charge Musk a few million.
Turning it the other way around is it deeply immoral and sociopathic for someone to hoard massive amounts of money/resources if there are people dying or suffering around them (even if not on the spot but e.g. due to poor access to healthcare)?
Given his approximate Trillionaire status, this is just what every vending machine doing income-based algorithmic pricing should charge him for EVERY bottle of water.