Masked token prediction is reconstruction. It goes far beyond “quoting.”

I don’t follow. You’re punishing the publishing industry by punishing authors?

I'm saying that LLMs are worthwhile useful tools, and that I'm glad that we built them, and that the publishing industry, which holds the copyright on the material that we would use to train the LLMs, have had no hand in developing them, have done no research, and have actively tried to fight the process at every turn. I have no sympathy for them.

The authors have been abused by the publishing industry for many decades. I think they're just caught in the middle, because they were never going to get a payday, whether from AI or selling books. I think the percentage of authors that are commercially successful is sub 1%.

So the argument is because LLMs are useful and the publishing industry was not involved in their creation we should disregard the property rights of the publishing industry and allow using their work without a license? By that same argument (if something useful is being build, we ignore existing rights) shouldn't not also just take the code/models from OpenAI etc. and just publish them somewhere? Why not also their datacenters?

It's not really an argument. It's an observation that they sat on their hands while other industries out-innovated them. They were complacent and now they're paying the price.

We have laws and rules, but those are intended to work for society. When they fail to do so, society routes around them. Copyright in particular has been getting steadily weaker in practice since the advent of the Internet, because the mechanisms it uses to extract value are increasingly impractical since they are rooted in the idea of printed media.

Copyright is fundamentally broken for the modern world, and this is just a symptom of that.

You’re willing to eliminate the entire concept of intellectual property for a possibility something might be a technological advancement? If creators are the reason you believe this advancement can be achieved, are you willing to provide them the majority of the profits?

That's an absolutely good tradeoff. There's no longer any need for copyright. Patents should go next. Only trademarks can stay.

> There's no longer any need for copyright

So you assign zero value to the process of creation?

Zero value to the process of production?

So people who write and produce books, shows and films should all do what? Give up their craft?

Creation isn't special, or constrained in number.

Process of creation itself is gratifying and valuable to those who will pursue it. No reason to additionally reward it.

Lamp lighters had to give up their craft I suppose and made way to a better world.

> Creation isn't special, or constrained in number. > Process of creation itself is gratifying and valuable to those who will pursue it.

spoken like someone who has never made anything in the real world

Holding a boom mic in the air is not gratifying and valuable to anyone who has to do it.

The fruits of your labour are not your labour.

Bullshit. Read up and understand the history of these things and their benefits to society. There is a reason they were created in the first place. Over a very long time. With lots of thoughts into the tradeoff/benefits to society. That Disney fucked with it does not make the original tradeoff not a benefit to society.

The fact that you don't actually call out the specific benefit is telling. We're in a world of plenty and don't need copyright to have those benefits for our fellow humans.

“The content industries.”

Why would people invest in destroying what they love?

There is no destruction.

He meant, the stream of free money from unsuspecting monkeys.

It’s unsound but, thankfully, there’re many sound geometric algebra libraries,

It’s slop

Everyone I know at Meta uses a Mac

No one at Meta runs local inference on a Mac, unless its for fun.

Because they make less.

Yeah! Lauren is the best.