|
Top-level
 @mcc @mark @gsuberland Exactly. Even if, say, GPT-4 wasn't covered by copyright, so what? Even if you could get it out of OpenAI's data centres in the first place, you couldn't run it with reasonable performance. And you *certainly* couldn't retrain it. 5 comments
@oblomov @mcc @mark @gsuberland How, though? Let's say that tomorrow, a judge rules that GPT-4 is not covered by copyright. What has actually changed? OpenAI isn't compelled to share it with anyone, and it's too big for anyone except large and wealthy corporations to actually do anything with. Sure, you couldn't get sued if you got a bittorrent of it somehow. But you're not getting a bittorrent of a 1.76 trillion parameter neural network anyway.  @datarama @oblomov @mcc @mark @gsuberland 1.76 trillion parameters is about a hard drive's worth of data, no? @crzwdjk @oblomov @mcc @mark @gsuberland It is, but that's *still* beside the point. You can't actually do anything with it unless you have the resources of a large corporation. And my other point was that just because it isn't copyrighted, they can still keep it secret. |
Gregory's Server
@datarama @mcc @mark @gsuberland there is one upside to forcing these models to be open and it's that it removes one of the, of not the primary, incentives in developing them in the first place. Yes, they could still sell its execution as a service, but if they lose control of the model itself, it becomes a considerably less profitable endeavor.