It is, but the issue is the right time to buy hardware was 2 years ago.
Comment on British fintech Revolut slashes "AI" coding costs 10x by cutting out Claude and going self-hosted
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
If AI isnʻt going to go away, it needs to be cheap, sustainable, open source, and self hosted/ hostable.
jobbies@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Its like 1/ Mooreʻs law.
The right time to buy hardware was always 2 years ago.
dustyData@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
And ethically trained. People should be financially compensated if their data was used to train AI without their consent.
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I don’t think it’s really possible to do this.
I mean speaking just logistically, how would you determine who gets how much? If it’s based on quality, how do you determine what is of high quality? Otherwise, does everyone who has every written anything that finds its way into a training dataset get like a tenth of a cent?
Alternative proposal: all AI models must be released as open weights, available to everyone.
AI, through its use of training data, has benefited from the sum total of human knowledge, therefore the results of this training should be given back for the use of all humanity.
That seems fair to me.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 10 hours ago
This is also my opinion. I always advocate for putting AI models under UNESCO stewardship, because they are a snapshot of all digital, cultural output the world has to offer, and therefor they aren’t less important than physical cultural artifacts. Free personal use, licensed use for commercial usage, with lower prices for educational/nongovernmental organisations. Use the funding to provide grants to the arts in a large scale.
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Holy shit! What an excellent idea.
As now will I.
meldrik@lemmy.wtf 7 hours ago
Not only open weight, but the dataset used should also be public.
BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
You are right if we look at it short term, long term llm will be replaced with the next thing and who knows maybe it can be trained ethically, at least we should require research into it.
ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 11 hours ago
Why not? Both parties have to figure out how much they want to pay or to get payed. Similar like it works for any other license like on Netflix or Spotify. It is not the AI companies job to determine how much they will get payed but how much the data is worth to them and the data creator how much they want.
If i am at a bakery and the bread they offer does not look like its for that much to me then i have not to buy it.
bumblebeer@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
How do you suggest an individual should go about this?
Do I go down to my local courthouse and file a suit against Anthropic so I can ask the judge to subpoena them to determine if my Reddit shitpost from 2012 is in their training set?
eleitl@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
That soup is already cooked. And obtaining consent is prohibitive, so your data set will be tiny.
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 10 hours ago
Open weight models cannot do this, they do not have any funding. If you demand this, you are just demanding that there will never be any open models, that proprietary AI models controlled by massive trillion dollar corporations will be the only models available, and frankly the cure is worse than the disease.
It’s also impractical, like closing the gate after the horses have already gone. Open-weight, unethically trained models are already out there. They are not going away. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. They will never earn any money, so they will never be able to compensate for the training that was done to create them, unless you consider the fact that they exist, and they are open to anybody, as at least some measure of compensation.
It’s not enough compensation, but it is something. The training was certainly unethical, but so is an economic system that requires intellectual property to be transactional. Why fix one unethical thing while keeping and reinforcing another?
The only sensible and reasonable way to resolve the issue in the long term is for significant government support and patronage of the arts and content creators (and ideally all people) to be established. People who do this for a living are providing valuable service to all of humanity and that deserves to be recognized not by transactional, metered capitalism that defines each piece of art or content in terms of its raw economic value (a system easily and frequently corrupted anyway if you look at the prevalence of theft, forgery, fraud and money-laundering in the high art world), but by guaranteeing a comfortable and dignified life that allows creative people to freely create the art or other works they love and feel passionate about without worrying that they’re going to starve to death or be forced into a dead-end job if they’re not economically successful.