Exactly.
Proprietary software and software patents need to end. In the case of medical devices, such restrictions violate the ADA by blocking access to reasonable accomodations.
>> Proprietary software and software patents need to end.
I'm with you on software patents. On copyright (from which proprietary software is derived) I'm less convinced.
My argument is two-fold;
Firstly, copyright law is the only thing that allows Open Source and Free Software to exist. Copyright is the mechanism that grants an author control of their work, and is the mechanism that forces people building on OSS/Free Software to release code.
You talk about "ending proprietary software", which in turn means effectively removing copyright, since it removes the authors control over their source code.
Secondly, and from a completely different direction, killing proprietary software basically kills all the software people use.
Sure OSS is great at infrastructure. But it has performed poorly in becoming the software people care about. Without proprietary software there's no Chrome, Google Search, Gmail, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, MS office, Dropbox, AWS, et al.
In infrastructure there's no iOS, Windows, Macs, Google services (aka Android as we know it) etc.
To argue that OSS has clones or replacements of this stuff is o miss the point that proprietary software created these products and markets. And for all the clones that may be out there most have < 10% market share, actually most have < 1% market share, because most clones are either poor refections or simply get their feature list from the proprietary work.
No, ending proprietary software does not end copyright. Even after reading your arguments, I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.
You argued quite the opposite, in fact, by claiming copyright (and not license terms) ensures open source software.
It is entirely possible to ban proprietary software in cases of human rights and public interest (e.g., open source medical firmware, to use the OP case) while maintaining copyright law even as it exists now.
I wonder if the inherent public domain nature of genAI output will lead to licensing issues and forced code releases in the future.
Someone would have to prove slop code was used; but the same copyright issues with slop art apply, with the added complication of obscured licensing terms.
Where I work, genAI tools are banned because we do contracts that involve transfer of ownership with disclosure of third-party source. The lawyers state that, genAI's removal of attribution, it runs afoul of the disclosure requirement. It's a fireable offense to even have the tools installed on work computers/devices.
Converting to a for-profit changes the tax status of donations. It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions.
I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns demanding they revise their originating datasets since there will now be a clear-cut commercial use without license.
I hope I can join in, as a consumer, because there’s a difference between using the IP I contribute to conversations for a non-profit and a commercial enterprise.
I suspect that if you have ever posted copyrightable material online, you will have valid cause to sue them, as they very obviously have incorporated your work for commercial gain. That said, I unfortunately put your chances of winning in court very low.
And why is it, that winning chances are low? Why do the courts let big tech trample on our rights, but the small man goes to jail or has to pay fines for much much less? And how can this situation be improved?
Hopefully at least in the EU someone will wake up and make better laws or even start applying them to the current situation.
Any reasonable court would see right through “well we trained it for the public good, but only we can use it directly”. That’s not really a legal loophole as much as an arrogant ploy. IMO, IANAL
That’s not what happened at all. There’s non-profit and for profit entities have always been selerate. The non-profit didn’t train anything, it invested money in the for profit to “further the mission towards agi” what’s happening now is just the non-profit defeating in OpenAI and turning to other endevours. Which makes a lot of sense since they tried to cut off the head of the for profit entity to take control, o company would like to see that independent of if the specific investor trying to gain control is a non-profit entity or a large investor.
> It also voids plausibility for Fair Use exemptions. I can see large copyright holders lining up with takedowns
I thought so for a moment but then again Meta, Anthropic (I just checked and they have a "for profit and public benefit" status whatever that means), Google or that Musk's thing aren't non-profits, are they ? There are lawsuits in motion for sure but with how it stands today I think ai gets off the hook.
Wherever possible, the chatbot output is deterministic, in that to answer a query, we're realtime generating and running code or SQL against your data. Our LLM orchestrates that, and finally evaluates whether the output correctly and adequately answers the question.
We also extensively use synthetic data and examples to guide and constrain our models.
Another way we're ensuring good-quality output is to ensure good-quality _input_ -- by enriching the detail and specificity of the user's question, and asking the user to disambiguate when we determine the question is too broad.
