Energy generation is part of the problem. Storage is another part. All renewable energy sources are not consistent.
There are peaks and troughs in generation. I have seen solar companies cutting of panel areas from grids given the lack of demand during that hour. Storage at grid and home level has the potential to disrupt the dynamic of the energy market.
Today, a select few companies control vast amount of energy supply this control needs to be broken for better future.
This is very recent change. There should be some benefit for the company too.
I know a company which hired the best MIT PhD but they also hired the best IIT PhDs for the work. Both of them do equally good. But the IIT PhDs are more cost effective and hence they expanded the program in India.
Cost is just one of the interesting dimensions. For various kinds of transport energy may be more important than cost. I would be prepared to pay significantly more for an EV if had range of 1000 km rather than 500.
>I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else.
To me this sounds like it's antithetical to open source software because the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work. It shouldn't matter if it's done through generative AI or through a human's brain.
> the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work
The point is that other people can leverage your work under the terms you distribute them under. For the vast majority of open source licenses, that means giving attribution and including the copyright notice and license when distributing the source code or its derivatives. For others, it means all of that and releasing derivatives under the same license.
If developers wanted to distribute their code under licenses with different terms, they would have, but they didn't.
But the generative models don't spit out existing code, it generates new code that (sometimes) happens to be the same as existing code. Which is the same as a human being does, just that an AI is much better at seeing a larger amount of existing work. There's no part of the model that has a specific piece of code, it just happens to reproduce the same thing.
People often write code that looks like existing code that they've seen even if they're not aware of it, it's a blurry line. I see it as just banning AI from doing the same thing as humans just because it's better at it.
An argument could be made that it's fair for an AI to not attribute the code it outputs too. The human-human reason for attribution is "I wrote this code by doing X amount of work, since you're using it and it'll save you time, I should fairly be given attribution". But then the AI is also writing out the code that it's prompted for, it's just faster at doing it.
Why not create a tool that instead runs the AI generated output through a check that provides proper attribution? Then you'll also get human written code that doesn't attribute the original author as well.
Why shouldn't it matter? Many open source licenses require attribution, so it is reasonable to think one point of making software open source is to get attribution. Generative AI prevents getting attribution, so it matters whether it is through generative AI or human brain.
I think the issues is making the work usable by people for free and for a fee paid to microsoft because (mostly) due to open source licenses that help keep the software free and not a boon only to huge corporations. This seems like a sneaky way of getting around the licensing. Maybe GPL4 that covers usage by AI models
Similar is the case from people who can't afford. They are not asking you to give it for free.
What they want is that the information accessible at affordable prices. The current situation is an ABC book either cost $10-$20-$30 or they can get it pirated. there is no middle ground.
People move to piracy due to lack of affordability and options.
Ah, the downvotes from the extremely privileged (most of whom do not even realize this).
I am from one of those countries where we pretty much cannot afford "legal" content. In my shitty town the median salary is something like $300, at least half of which goes towards paying rent if you don't have your own house, while we're being asked to pay prices that were established for developed countries with median salaries at 10× of ours or above.
Steam is one of very few exceptions and it's really popular here even among students and such (just like everywhere else).
Basically, if you want to charge me $50 for the book, you're not losing anything, simply because I cannot afford it anyway. Imagine if you had to pay $500 for books, $600 for movies, etc.
Interesting. I don’t know where you’re from. But in India, usually publishers publish an Exclusive to South Asian market version of the book which costs around $4-$20.
For example, The Pragmatic Programmer costs $10 in Indian stores, while it costs $50 in US.
In eastern europe sometimes it is the lack of legal options to actually access content. Example: star wars shows were unaccessible in any way other, academia papers, lots of books are not translated and published etc.
Stability AI is formed with that vision to keep is open-source and accessible to the masses. It's very rare that we might see it becoming a closed source
But it might eventually be neutered with filtering out "problematic" content from the models. Maybe that's NSFW now, but then could easily have busybodies start pressing for "bias" and other topics to be removed.
Someone here put it very well to watch out how the masses would try to censor AI-produced content into oblivion in their futile pursuit of trying to shoot the messenger.
There are peaks and troughs in generation. I have seen solar companies cutting of panel areas from grids given the lack of demand during that hour. Storage at grid and home level has the potential to disrupt the dynamic of the energy market.
Today, a select few companies control vast amount of energy supply this control needs to be broken for better future.