I wouldn't say they should. In some cases there is no other choice. Defense competition exists whether it's desirable or not. Pretending otherwise won't help to win a lawsuit.
That is a large enough gray area for me that I think it should be more regulated. If llms do truly help “a greater good” then the company, govt, or something should pay or work with the data hosters. Otherwise it’s back to llm company needs your biometrics to save the world…eventually…, but trust them.
I guess we can agree to disagree, as I don’t think I can ever 100% trust any unregulated company with infinite data/computation.
*regardless of their perceived goal
They may say they have the best of intentions, but call me skeptical.
You've misunderstood my point then, I think. I don't care about greater purpose at all and I don't think there is one.
America won't let China have defense technology that it doesn't get to use.
It has nothing to do with OpenAI, or any other company, nor artists, nor right from wrong. If OpenAI eats small children for breakfast, or feeds all the hungry in Africa, makes no difference whatsoever.
You can ignore that fact and stand on a mountain and shout about OpenAI being evil all day long.
But you're going to lose the lawsuit if you ignore the facts of reality. No matter how loud you cry about it.
Fair enough, I think we are in agreement then. I just greatly dislike the platitudes of OpenAI or llm companies being on a high horse with laws, when something like this happens and bends backwards against general ownership.
1 single person in their basement would be thrown in jail for downloading the whole internet, but a company with “plans” is fine.
