Ah, product management - we know so few of ye who know what you're doing.

If someone were to create a derivative model and distribute that, it would get murky if they licensed it Apache 2.0 or MIT, because users of that derivative would have never agreed to the upstream license (and may not even be aware of it), and the model is unlikely to be copyrightable.

Seems like rage is maybe a tad misplaced?

Technology progresses. You're playing to an end-state of AI that assumes labor disappears entirely because you have yet to see what the new labor system looks like.

Ah, wit is alive and strong!

Accused Dario of being part of Ilya’s coup against Sam Altman (now retracted), stated “ It’s an open secret that the training data wasn’t legally obtained anyway” when fair use has very clearly been established, and panders to the anti-AI doomer crowd with talk about how AI won’t be useful economically until we can get to the energy efficiency of the human brain while still invoking the boogeyman of killer drones and cyberterrorism.

Jev was overhyped, and the marketing was clearly looking to coin a few buzzwords, but the author seems to be intentionally ignoring the pace of development, the erosion of traditional intellectual property assumptions, and the realities of the technology. It can be overhyped, but this is very clearly the telos of all technology.

A couple weeks?! Really slacking, why not a few hours?

Add the violin and calculus while they're at it.

Compute, however, clearly is not.

I continue to find that people strongly advocate for justice on exactly opposing sides, depending on who they have been told to think the “bad guy” is.

A master after my own heart.

I'm by no means citing that AI is perfect, or that there are no problems or challenges ahead, but the self-lobotomizing AI doomerism/rejection is turning otherwise intelligent people into a horde of anti-AI lemmings that are afraid to apply the critical thinking they believe is being lost by AI users.

These things are puppeteering blender to model things for gods sake. Are you all blind?

You're right. I didn't even need AI to get my point across.

If your audience is the AI pilled, your inability to sense your own slop is a signal of incompetence.

I know an artist who has done well for themselves. They have done so because they have revealed that they know what it is they sell. “I sell paper”

The artist is the source of value. An AI can produce visual media, but it can not be an artist. The artist is not one work, but the source of many arts.

Copyright is the protection of the creative work in a fixed media. It is not the protection of ideas or styles.

My thrust is therefore not that protection of creative work should be abolished, but that the notion of “theft” of ideas and styles is one that is not protected by copyright today, and only serves entrenched corporate interests.

We are either entering a world of hyperliquid culture or tyranny.

Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.

In this way, I tend to think of the context environment on an agent is the "agent nav" -- it presents context, allows progressive disclosure, and if poorly designed, makes the agent flounder as a poorly designed UI/UX does.