Untitled

Yeah, the whole thing seems like a human centipede of rug pulling. Probably the same as it's always been. Curating AI knowledge should be something that we put our best researchers towards, but realistically I think we wind up with 2-3 highly biased nationalistic models that are constantly copying off each other's notes.

But if you take it deeper, didn't most of those authors rely on the work of others? Most of human knowledge is small advancements of things we already knew. Often by reorganizing what we already knew. Is that not what the foundation models are? A new reorganization of existing knowledge?

Don't forget the mothers of all those original authors, as well as everyone who labored to build and sustain the societies which produced writers.

To a degree. The human produced knowledge is the product of all humanity (no human is an island). A comparable idea could be that an encyclopedia or maths book is only distilling the things that other people did, and how dare they sell them. But the "only" is doing quite a bit of work. LLMs do not just spawn into existence. There is a body of work that they feed on, and then there is also very attributable work they do around and on top of that. All labs are struggling around the first order question: Is it okay to use prior work like this? The second order issue is still entirely reasonable to separately have and enforce rules about.

Kinda agree statistical modeling relies on all the hard work, effort, passion and risk taken from just about everybody.