It's not like they are giving people technology that nobody else has! Versions of this exist already, including open-source. Their motive is to look good while furthering their own lock-in over the open alternatives — at the cost of the "targets" of their philanthropy.
@alexjc
-
Proprietary Licenses vs Open Source: AI’s Perverse Incentives
By
–
Think about *how* they are (supposedly) helping. They are providing licenses as a lock-in to their own proprietary platform, instead of helping people permanently by promoting or releasing things as open-source. It's a perverse incentive at best, given the alternative.
-
Tech Giants Should Fund Open-Source AI Alternatives Permanently
By
–
You have to look at their actions in context: there are open-source alternatives which they could fund and *permanently* help those who they claim to support — rather than giving some the privilege of temporary cloud compute.
-
Licensing Models: Proprietary vs Open Source AI Code
By
–
Please use your brain for a second longer! They are giving *licenses* that could end at any time, leaving those people in worse position than before. If the profit-seeking companies made a lite version of their code available forever on open-devices, it'd be fine…
-
Open-Source Accessibility Technology Over Profit-Driven Corporate Solutions
By
–
This kind of thing should be open-source only. It's always dangerous to have profit-seeking companies use disabled people for PR, e.g. to fix the reputation problem caused by the rest of their business.
— Alex J. Champandard 🌱 (@alexjc) 21 août 2024
(It's huge Red Flag for me, same as NeuralLink's DARPA-derived technology.) https://t.co/8ixe1JVa7dThis kind of thing should be open-source only. It's always dangerous to have profit-seeking companies use disabled people for PR, e.g. to fix the reputation problem caused by the rest of their business. (It's huge Red Flag for me, same as NeuralLink's DARPA-derived technology.)
-
Copyright Fair Use Debate in AI Training Sparks Policy Discussion
By
–
So we've gone from "it doesn't fall under copyright" to "even if it is, it's fair use" to "even if it's unfair, it's the wrong tool"? Luckily, Copyright can't be unilaterally dismantled overnight based on one position paper.
-
AI Model Training Data Abuse Accountability Ethics
By
–
If you think you deserve more respect than others in the field, why don't you start by explaining what actions you took when you found out your base model was trained on thousands and thousands of instances of child abuse?
-
Generative AI bubble bursting via pseudo-acquisitions and talent exodus
By
–
This is how the Generative AI bubble pops… with tepid celebrations about a pseudo-acquisition — as most of the team shuffles on within a year (after vesting) and most of the code inevitably disappears into a corporate attic. https://
x.com/torchcompiled/
/torchcompiled/status/1818152222326186260
… -
AI regulation speed: politics versus creator protection
By
–
Look again just how fast they move on AI when it comes to partisan politics… But for the millions of artists and creators suffering from exploitation, or users on major platforms having their privacy destroyed, we're on our own!
-
AI Advocates at Conferences: Lobbying Power and Industry Influence
By
–
I think they just hang around at AI conferences and get sponsorship from big companies, and just end up more likely to believe they can lobby for changes. The changes may happen though, don't underestimate their power!