this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024

505 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

60033 readers

2795 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

505

Meta asks the US government to block OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 week ago by MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Meta is asking California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block OpenAI’s planned transition from a non-profit to for-profit entity.

In a letter sent to Bonta’s office this week, Meta says that OpenAI “should not be allowed to flout the law by taking and reappropriating assets it built as a charity and using them for potentially enormous private gains.”

The letter, which was first reported on by The Wall Street Journal and you can read in full below, goes so far as to say that Meta believes Elon Musk is “qualified and well positioned to represent the interests of Californians in this matter.” Meta supporting Musk’s fight against OpenAI is notable given that Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were talking about literally fighting in a cage match just last year.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] db2@lemmy.world 147 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Fuck Meta. Fuck OpenAI.

[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And, I'd like to add, fuck Musk.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fuck Musk, from Chanel

[–] EffortlessEffluvium@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

Isn’t it enough that we have Fight Fight Fight?!?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 127 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Just cos meta supports it doesnt mean its bad. The enemy of my enemy etc etc

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And they make a valid point. Imagine if all startups started as non profit, raised their assets with tax reduction, and then decided to go for profit when it suited them? That’s tax evasion.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

Thats a great idea u mind if i steal it?

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 78 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yeah I mean zuck and musk don’t want it because it removes an extra hoop that OpenAI has to jump through to compete, but all said and done fuck all three of them for taking another leap in human achievement and making it a “profit for investors at any cost.” And fuck OpenAI especially for pretending that wasn’t the case all along

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Meta sucks, but here they are very right

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Meta is just trying to protect their intellectual property, meaning everything anyone has created on any of their platforms.

Yep, they own all of it, including every single comment anyone has written on Whatsapp.

[–] druge@programming.dev 3 points 6 days ago

they're also making their own ai and don't want openai to keep being better

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

don't just block them. force all AI companies that use online content for research to move to a nonprofit and require them to provide their source code openly.

tax payer dollars paid to create that content so that means that AI is tax payer bought.

don't like it? train your models on a closed network that's behind a paywall.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dont limit this to AI companies. All social media companies should be forced to become nonprofits and their code AGPL'd

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

But the AGPL does not prevent you from doing commercial activities

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Being nonprofit also doesn't prevent you from doing commercial activities.

But i think the idea would be if they are forced to be nonprofit and their code open-sourced then there is now transparency in how their LLMs are trained and operate.

But it's a bit silly to try to make AI companies nonprofits to begin with since they could just go to another country with "better" laws if they are punished too heavily in one country.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

People gotta eat. There's nothing wrong with selling open source software

The most important part is that the people and the government can see how the suggestion and feed algorithms are written, so they they can make them change them if they're found to lead to increased harm, such as suicides.

[+] john89@lemmy.ca -17 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

That's beyond stupid.

If you don't want bots scraping your content, then don't put it up on the public internet.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I think you're misunderstanding the origin of the Internet.

I was there, I know what made the Internet amazing before it was sold out for corporate interests.

It was inspired by another technology that was, in many ways, the Internet of the early 20th century. I'm referring to HAM radio.

HAM radio is fun because of the strict regulations operators need to follow and the communities that are fostered in those regulations.

the early Internet was not only built by those same people, but had fostered the same kind of spirit behind HAM. corporate interests broke the dam on a lack of regulation and have been flooding the web for decades since.

if we want to return to any semblance of what the Internet supported at the turn of the century, we must increase regulations that prohibit the abuse and theft of online intellectual property.

If a company can be considered a person, then I see no reason why each of my online contributions can't be one as well. and as such no reason why each of those contributions can't be afforded the same protections of personhood giants like UHC, Amazon, OpenAI can benefit from.

[–] sarahduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Do artists not deserve the right to decide who profits from their art, even if it's posted to the internet? Would it be ethical for me to sell posters of artwork I did not create without the artists permission?

[–] john89@lemmy.ca -3 points 6 days ago

Do artists not deserve the right to decide who profits from their art, even if it’s posted to the internet?

No, I don't think they deserve that "right."

Would it be ethical for me to sell posters of artwork I did not create without the artists permission?

Ethics vary from person to person and change with the times. I think it would be ethical because I do not support the ownership of ideas.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is one of the funnier things I see frequently on here. People both champion free and open source code and data that can be used for anything… until it is used for anything they even mildly dislike.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

it's disturbing how many people blindly agree with you.

free and open does not mean open menu to make money from.

I shared this comment on Lemmy with the full intention to allow the community to benefit from it, not for a company with an inflated valuation of $1.2B to steal, bottle, and sell to the world.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Maybe that’s what you believe, but allowing commercial use has been a core tenant of free and open source software

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago

no it hasn't. the first instance of open source anything was a major manufacturer(Ford) strong arming the patent office into forcing a patent holder to give up the rights to his patent effectively making it worthless.

only then to create a shell company (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) that would then hold the rights to the patent and share it with all motor vehicle manufacturers.

it was all a grift to get the patent away from the original holder so that Ford would directly benefit from it because they didn't have an engineering team capable enough to design an engine that didn't infringe upon the original patent.

because of this we have had zero to no true innovation on engine designs outside of a racetrack (which also directly benefits the manufacturer).

so don't go spouting that FOSS has always been about being an equalizing factor to intellectual property rights, because if anything it's the exact opposite.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (10 children)

90% of Facebook content is AI generated content now. I cant even see what my friends are doing anymore. Makes me want to just delete it. But, I do occasionally see stuff from family and friends, which is the only reason I keep it. Some people I only stay in touch with through Facebook. But seriously, fuck that company.

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Here's a thought. Leave Facebook and spend more time with family and friends wether it be in person, on the phone or over text. You'll feel better for doing it and your family will be happy to hear from you. Deleted mine close to 10 years ago and have never had a desire to go back.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I have yet to receive a single chat message that was AI generated. Being able to connect to old college buddies that I otherwise would loose contact with is literally the only use case for Facebook

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Im talking about the content on your feed, not messages.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Sure, but my point is that nobody posts anything on Facebook anymore. Its just bots and, well, maybe grandmas.

Facebook today is essentially just an address book to check in on old friends when you've lost their contact info

[–] Potatisen@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

You won't miss it, you think you will but you honestly won't.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Getting rid of Facebook was easily one of the best things I've done. The people that are important will find other ways to reach out.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably the only time this year I'll agree with Zuckerborg.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 days ago

He’s sucking upto Musk lol

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They love small government and maximum Freedom until they want the government to restrict somebody's freedom.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've remembered Babylon 5 season 4 today. Specifically the part where the "good" Vorlons and the "bad" Shadows started erasing the shit out of worlds inhabited by lesser races who made the wrong choice of having traces of the opposing side.

Point being, you are being sarcastic about Republicans and rightfully so, but Clinton administration is the one that introduced mass surveillance in the USA, and now in Syria CNN praises HTS (Sunni jihadis) and Fox News highlight SDF (secular socialists). Though from what I've read, apparently they really honestly talk to each other, which is a surprising kind of coexistence, HTS leader's words I took with scepticism, but SDF leaders too say they have no problem with HTS. HTS is a mix of ex-al-Qaeda and ex-ISIS, that's how strange this is.

OK, politics again.

On the subject - I think turning a non-profit into for-profit while not letting go of datasets and such, legally allowed to be assembled in the context of it being non-profit, is kinda theft. So Facebook is right here. Circumstantially of course.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hadn't considered the ethics of transferring data acquired as a non-profit. It's an interesting moral question - although I doubt this is Meta's motivation (which is simply to tamp down competition).

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well, for me it's the obvious first question. I guess I'm conditioned by, well, living in Russia, where something like this has led to the current regrettable situation.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Not sure which regrettable situation you're talking about there, but as an outsider Russia's current state seems like the product of a century of diverse developments.

I think America's current state is a combination of the public getting more stupid and the oligarchy taking advantage of it and encouraging it. I attribute the stupidity increase to entertainment addiction, starting small with radio and progressing through television and computers to the internet. Lots of people can't even even take a shit now without their little plastic rectangle to stare at.

load more comments