Justice is not only about what is fair, but also about the fear people have of suffering consequences, aka: Pain. Being in jail is painful. It’s a tiny room with no hygiene, cockroaches, the toilet is right there in the same room, isolation, unlikable neighbors, years or decades without Internet, a TV or PC…
The biggest lie the Jeffrey Epstein Class managed to pull off was to convince everyone that causing pain is an “absolute” wrong. It is not. Pain is what forces us to reflect and grow the fuck up to avoid committing the same mistakes. Those fuckers didn’t have enough pain in their lives, because they lived it on Easy Mode. They were surrounded by yes-men and serfs constantly glazing them and laughing at their bad jokes. Now we are here.
We don’t do shit to them because we are afraid of the pain the bodyguards, the cops or the law will lay upon us. But it should not be that way. They should be afraid of the people. Right now, they are laughing at us, doing heinous shit on purpose just to test our limit, and in the worst case scenario, normalize it. Young kids are already memeing Epstein, almost treating it like it’s no big deal or just a joke, I seriously hope they don’t carry that attitude forever, and realize that people like Epstein deserve to have their head opened to the truth as soon as you see them. Their bodyguards, I’d say are the worst people of all. The army, cops, bodyguards; they are people who openly and proudly decided to give their lives for a dude who rapes children and is not paying people what they’re truly worth, a livable wage.
Nothing will get better until the rich fear for their lives.
They only know how to punish. Fear is not enough. We must obliterate them and everything they love, that those who come after will never make their mistake.
That’s why we need to vote blue no matter who this November, to make sure they get what’s coming to them!
The “you are replaceable” thing is older than everyone currently alive. It hasn’t been invented by the AI tech bros.
Also, the library is still out there. You still can ignore the rent-seeking middle men and use it directly with your own natural neural network.Apparently you had to sign an agreement that you will not use internet for business/commercial purposes in the NSFNET days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Network#Acceptable_use_policy
The internet will never be open again because of this.
Not under capital. No.
They should be sued for theft and plagiarism.
Yes, the courts will save us!
They are also trying to take away these free resources by pushing laws to make ID identification mandatory to make money off of us.
Once you understand that AI is limited to the questioner’s ability to properly elucidate what they need to know you’ll have several more botched concrete stair resurfacings.
Thanks Gemini, you self-contradicting potato
Gemini: “yes, an important distinction - you have made the critical observation that I am useless!”
“- Or not, I am not a lawyer, what do I know.”
~(This answer was generated by 10000 liters of fresh water and the energy equivalent of a quarter nuclear power plant)~
20 years? More like somewhere between 30 to 40 if we count early WWW and the Gopher+Usenet that came before it. The GPL isn’t quite that old, but the spirit behind it sure is. If we count early home-computer clubs back in the 70’s (like the one that birthed the original Apple) or the ham-radio crowd that came before it, we can push into 50+ year territory, easy.
I hadn’t considered AI being a paywall around the whole WWW but now that you mention it, it kind of looks that way. I’ve opined elsewhere that social media companies (e.g. Facebook) are building walled-gardens to keep eyeballs and attention-spans locked on their brand of reality. This would just be another avenue of attack in that strategy.
I remember frequenting MOOs and IRC, and downloading guitar tabs and chords off OLGA using clients in DOS back in the early 90s. Over 30 years ago. The Internet today is unrecognizable by comparison.
Welcome to the world of scientific publishing, long before AI. Except authors even have to pay for creating “content”, and reviewers are expected to work for free. Yet article access is sold at astronomical prices.
Hey, remember that time Aaron Swartz used public APIs and perfectly legal aggregation of information to compile scientific journals in a data set outside the paywall. And he was arrested, prosecuted, and threatened with life in prison until he (allegedly) killed himself?
Then his original and highly lucrative pet project, Reddit, was mutated into a propaganda factory by the Epstein Class, cannibalized by the Investor Class, and gutted for AI slop by the Tech Sector?
At least, academic papers give credits to the author… Or to the author’s boss
I don’t even know why they charge such high prices.
I don’t work in academia but I am curious about thing and look up papers all the time.
I have never bought a single one at those ridiculous prices. But if they were reasonable like $1-$3 or something I probably would have an di imagine a lot of people would have.
You make more if 100 people buy a $1 item than 3 people buying a $30 item and the world benefits more.
Because they can. It really is just a cartell. Especially institutions pay a fortune for bundled access.
That is how capitalism works.
The American Weather Service provided weather updates for free, but a company came along and just started copying what the weather service posted … then sued the Weather Service for publicly posting the weather because the government is not allowed to provide a service for free that a company can charge for.
Insanity.
the government is not allowed to provide a service for free that a company can charge for
I am beyond mildly infuriated by such an idiotic stance, but it tracks with what I’ve seen.
RIP postal service you’re next.
Same thing happened in Germany where the DWD collects and publishes weather data. Wetter.de came along and sued them, forcing them to hide features in their app (developed and paid for by tax money) behind a paywall. That was later overturned, but I still refuse to use their site
Yes! Exact same here. Its so dumb it sounds made up. A random company comes along and just gets to sell what was once free.
Government issues the business licenses. Seems like someone needs to be reminded who has who by the balls.
State governments issue business licenses. This is how we will kill Citizen’s United.
Hawaii first, Montana next.
this person gets it
In case anyone didn’t know the answer is business as in business has the government by the balls.
As intended by the founding fathers, of course
That’s exactly right, and it’s clearly why they intentionally decided to let the businesses have guns and gave them all the other rights in the constitution, knowing they would someday be declared to be actual “people” by a series of what must be the stupidest and most destructive legal precedents ever set in the history of humanity.
Yup. Government has businesses by the balls.
But corruption exists.
Therefore the goverment only ever really pulls small businesses and normal people by the balls, while the big businesses and uber rich (money heavyweights) get to pull the government by the tongue. Sometimes even the balls as well.
Just as Supply Side Jesus intended.
Yup. Government has businesses by the balls.
I don’t think that they do anymore. Not in the US.
The opposite is true here.
This is not new for companies to make money on the internet using the work and information others made without compensation for the community
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs, it’s just that the price is different, you pay with your attention spans instead of money
I’m pretty sure that we’ll have freely accessible LLMs with ads baked in a way you can’t even see them at first glance (if they aren’t doing it already)What’s new with LLMs is that the information source is hidden, no credit is attributed for people that contribute to the community anymore
Google search or stackoverfow did it long before LLMs
These examples had very obvious attribution and were an easy path to you. AI on the other hand serves as the source of truth in almost all scenarios. I consider myself a savvy user and even then I find myself never actually clicking on the cited sites - just looking at their titles, most people don’t even bother with that.
which is why any opensource project should have strict restrictions about how companies are allowed to use it.
big companies can (currently) legally pirate books/movies/media from torrenting sites in order to train ai algos. Source: Meta Lawsuit
Indeed, the courts have shockingly given a pass to torrenting down unauthorized copies to the LLM companies, versus how they destroyed some lives of private individuals for similar behavior…
You see, there is a huge difference you are missing here….
They are billionaires
Fun fact, recently had an argument with someone defending the favorable tax situation for the ultra wealthy.
Their argument was that billionaires did not have as much “real money” as middle class people so of course the middle class people should pay more in taxes…
Relevant to nothing, but just thinking of favorable billionaire treatment right now triggers that thought…
Doesn’t really stop them from ignoring it anyway.
There is a license that says that all derivatives must also be open source.
But also AI companies don’t care about the law, they stole all their data, engage in insider trading, circular trading, and generating all manner of illegal content, they don’t give a fuck. And the US government isn’t doing anything to hold them accountable, infact the president is getting in on it.
deleted by creator
And the US government is doing anything
isn’t doing anything
Yeah that’s what I meant
And the US government is doing anything to hold them accountable
You probably meant “nothing” instead of “anything”?
Yes, all this is very much the product of the current US admin.
they stole all there data
Obviously fuck the capitalists and AI scammers. But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It’s the wrong argument.
The answer obviously is to keep the actual source material and libraries and book archives open and just run open source AI models at home. You can run smaller versions on a solar powered PC no problem.
The issue with trying to make “AI is just stolen” happen is that it will make open source AI models illegal. AI companies would love that because they can afford to license and pay or work around or obscure or whatever. The “intellectual property” argument is always a disgusting capitalist one. Knowledge is either free or nothing is.
But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing. It’s the wrong argument.
A powerful argument if one cannot tell the difference between a person and a product.
Large amounts of data were pirated, which is apparently legal if you’re training an AI. Source: Meta lawsuit
Library implies consent that was not there and access to the public that was not there.
Except these people are turning around and burningdown the libraries once they’ve read all the books.
But reading and learning from a library, then writing and selling your own book based on that is NOT stealing.
It could be argued that these AIs are not actually learning but collecting and rearranging. That’s still stealing in my book, especially if it happens on a massive industrial scale and by a megacorp instead of a person.
Just further enshittification. Companies don’t make new things or new technologies anymore. They just find new ways to rent squat and extract fees. They’ve stolen everyone’s work, manufactured a way to give it to you first without you seeing the author’s material, and told everyone to use this method to access information so they can charge for it.
Coincidentally, OOP just explained academic publishing to a T.
clenches fist
A parasite can take different shapes but only one form.
Sort of. Unless you go to a private university taxes go to the public schools to fun facilities and wages for the educators. While you may pay tuition, the overall cost of that education and the services needed for one to do research doesn’t come wholely out of your pocket.
Now I agree you should be compensated more, as someone who tried to get published academically and has filed patents I can see why there is a split of compensation.
Wdym? Scientists usually don’t get paid to publish. The person you replied to, probably meant academic publishing as in:
- Scientist does research and compiles manuscript, usually via public money, even in shithole countries like the US
- Scientist submits manuscript to for profit journal
- Journal outsources proofreading to other scientists, who do it for free
- Manuscript is accepted or revised on scientists time and money
- Scientist pays for publishing
- For Profit journal either charges extra for “open” publication or charges scientist and other scientists for access, usually by agreements with the respective library
- Profit! (On the journals part)
Where is the split of compensation? For patents there is, but for academic publishing usually not.
You also forgot how scientist is required to publish regularly to keep their job, and to find new jobs. So this process is far from optional.
That aside, that was an excellent write up. You should publish that to a journal or something. 😏
Thanks for the peer review!
I feel very educated from having all read this.
You are missing the point, it’s not about education, but publishing. Read about Elsevier, and how Aaron Swartz died
