AI is a scam, the next one after NFT, crypto…
Yeah, but I need to know what the one after AI is going to be so I can get in on the ground floor.
Quantum computing. It might be a real thing but it’ll go through a grift phase first.
Another one will be environmental carbon capture, like pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. This one would be easier to fake but might not get traction for longer since the ideological superstructure in our society is already built up so that it is hard for a political crisis to emerge due to global climate concerns. Even though climate change is worsening, and whole cities are being destroyed by hurricanes, the debate is still pretty stabilized. However since this grift will end up being sold as a commercial solution to a political problem, the grift will probably come from a larger player like Lockheed or Boeing, which would necessitate investing in the most evil companies in existence. Still you never know, Tesla stayed afloat for years without making a working product by selling carbon credits issued by the government to other car companies, so you might be able to bootstrap this one
I don’t know if you’re right or if you’re trying to sell me something, but you sound knowledgeable so I’m in. Where do I send my cash?
There are a lot of scams around AI and there’s a lot of very serious science.
While generative AI gets all the attention there are many other fields of AI that you probably use on a regular basis.
The reason we don’t see the rest of the AI iceberg is because it’s mostly interesting when you have enormous amounts of data you want to analyze and that doesn’t apply to regular people. Most of the valuable AIs (as in they’ve been proven to make or save a bunch of money) do stuff like inventory optimization, protein expression simulation, anomaly detection, or classification.
It’s otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.
In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone’s work and produced something strikingly similar. That’s not what happened here.
This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn’t about what the AI did it’s about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn’t copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can’t just remove the APL2.0 from some work it’s attached to.
This is great. So all their VC-funded work will get released publicly, and we all benefit.
I don’t see why people are upset that FOSS projects are getting VC funding for development…
Haha. Maybe.
I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can’t control the code base but weirder things have happened.
This is how open source is supposed to work. Everything they’re doing is now going to improve the open source codebase. This is good.
How is it boot licking to get money from rich people to develop open source software?
Lemmy is FOSS that was funded by a grant from NLNet. Its the same outcome as this.
If anyone is licking boots, its the rich people licking the FOSS boots
Except this isn’t money going to a FOSS project, it’s money to some guys whose only keyboard is StackOverflow’s The Key.
Not at all, really. Forking is fine and building a business off of it is fine (I don’t personally see the value in it but apparently Y Combinator saw fit to invest in this so what do I know). Where they fucked up was replacing the existing free software license with some “AI” generated mumbo jumbo, because they were “too busy building” to “bother with legal.”
You didn’t have to “bother” with creating a license, because there already was one. No one in free software should be rolling their own custom license (GPT generation aside) because there exist perfectly good ones already.
It doesn’t matter what the license chatgpt spat out says. If they forked from a Foss base repo, then all of the code they make will be FOSS too. This is great.
No, they are just in violation of the original license. That doesn’t mean they have to comply with it by properly open sourcing the project. Generally it’s also OK to just delete everything.
There were plenty of cases where commercial software included open source stuff in a way that violated its license, and the accepted way to fix the license violation was for the software/hardware vendor to stop using the violated project going forward. Usually they don’t even have to for example scrub old firmware downloads that improperly included FOSS bits.
Slack is just a skin over IRC, so this isn’t a new type of behavior.
Tbh I don’t think I wanna interact with ai anymore
