this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
506 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

60112 readers
3513 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta is asking California Attorney General Rob Bonta to block OpenAI’s planned transition from a non-profit to for-profit entity.

In a letter sent to Bonta’s office this week, Meta says that OpenAI “should not be allowed to flout the law by taking and reappropriating assets it built as a charity and using them for potentially enormous private gains.”

The letter, which was first reported on by The Wall Street Journal and you can read in full below, goes so far as to say that Meta believes Elon Musk is “qualified and well positioned to represent the interests of Californians in this matter.” Meta supporting Musk’s fight against OpenAI is notable given that Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were talking about literally fighting in a cage match just last year.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db2@lemmy.world 147 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And, I'd like to add, fuck Musk.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But maybe they can fuck each other a bit?

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] wrekone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

Love it when I can upvote an entire comment chain.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 127 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Just cos meta supports it doesnt mean its bad. The enemy of my enemy etc etc

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 78 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I mean zuck and musk don’t want it because it removes an extra hoop that OpenAI has to jump through to compete, but all said and done fuck all three of them for taking another leap in human achievement and making it a “profit for investors at any cost.” And fuck OpenAI especially for pretending that wasn’t the case all along

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

And fuck OpenAI especially for pretending that wasn’t the case all along

I'm not sure they were ever pretending. I saw another Lemmy post about the Musk-OpenAI email exchanges from 8 years ago.

They seemed very open that the long term plan was to become a for profit company. They said they weren't ready yet and rejected Elon's demand to make him majority owner and merge with Tesla.

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Elon's biggest enemy is his own ego and wanting to be relevant

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And they make a valid point. Imagine if all startups started as non profit, raised their assets with tax reduction, and then decided to go for profit when it suited them? That’s tax evasion.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Meta sucks, but here they are very right

[–] Retrograde@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Meta sucks, but here they are very ~~right~~ hypocritical*

Don't worry fam I got you

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ironic they are demanding government regulation / interdiction.

[–] cheeseandrice@lemm.ee 18 points 1 week ago

Big corp loves regulation of its competition most of all.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Meta is just trying to protect their intellectual property, meaning everything anyone has created on any of their platforms.

Yep, they own all of it, including every single comment anyone has written on Whatsapp.

[–] druge@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

they're also making their own ai and don't want openai to keep being better

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (9 children)

don't just block them. force all AI companies that use online content for research to move to a nonprofit and require them to provide their source code openly.

tax payer dollars paid to create that content so that means that AI is tax payer bought.

don't like it? train your models on a closed network that's behind a paywall.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Dont limit this to AI companies. All social media companies should be forced to become nonprofits and their code AGPL'd

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (10 children)

90% of Facebook content is AI generated content now. I cant even see what my friends are doing anymore. Makes me want to just delete it. But, I do occasionally see stuff from family and friends, which is the only reason I keep it. Some people I only stay in touch with through Facebook. But seriously, fuck that company.

[–] Potatisen@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

You won't miss it, you think you will but you honestly won't.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Getting rid of Facebook was easily one of the best things I've done. The people that are important will find other ways to reach out.

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

It reminds me of Facebook friends who are worthless

[–] Anissem@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Pull the plug, you won’t look back.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

After much debate, we did .. On WhatsApp :/

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have only used groups to ask questions. Do people still do that, go browse the Facebook feed? I thought that's a grandma thing

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Devdoggy@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Hey, you left reddit, didn't you? Do you miss that?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably the only time this year I'll agree with Zuckerborg.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They love small government and maximum Freedom until they want the government to restrict somebody's freedom.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I've remembered Babylon 5 season 4 today. Specifically the part where the "good" Vorlons and the "bad" Shadows started erasing the shit out of worlds inhabited by lesser races who made the wrong choice of having traces of the opposing side.

Point being, you are being sarcastic about Republicans and rightfully so, but Clinton administration is the one that introduced mass surveillance in the USA, and now in Syria CNN praises HTS (Sunni jihadis) and Fox News highlight SDF (secular socialists). Though from what I've read, apparently they really honestly talk to each other, which is a surprising kind of coexistence, HTS leader's words I took with scepticism, but SDF leaders too say they have no problem with HTS. HTS is a mix of ex-al-Qaeda and ex-ISIS, that's how strange this is.

OK, politics again.

On the subject - I think turning a non-profit into for-profit while not letting go of datasets and such, legally allowed to be assembled in the context of it being non-profit, is kinda theft. So Facebook is right here. Circumstantially of course.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] john89@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I think there's a for-profit part of the business and a non-profit part.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

The non-profit part used to own the for profit with a majority stake afaik

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

let them fight

oh yeah, the "free" market

[–] Loduz_247@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why doesn't Meta want Open AI to be a for-profit company?

And are there any examples of a company that started as a non-profit becoming for-profit?

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 week ago (4 children)

for profit would imply they can grow even faster due to having funds to expand its service. You would be against it if you plan on having your own competing AI service(which meta clearly does)

[–] just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Meta has also released many top tier model to the open source community. To say "meta only oppose openai cuz they wanna create a service of their own" is quite frankely uninformed.

Meta is the reason so many researchers are able to work and make AI accessible to the everyday people. Without llama models, so much of research would not have been possible cuz openai never release their stuff under the guise of "safety".

Openai wants to monopolize and charge us whatever they want. And this going for-profit was part of their plan from the beginning. If only meta had not released their top tier models for absolutely free, openai would have had complete monopoly.

Also saying for profit structure would allow them to have more fund is like saying having a gun will allow a robber to have more funds.

The funds will come from consumers, for profit would mean they will have an easier time ripping off the people without too much scrutiny

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

none of this doesn't refute anything ive said. the whole point to prevent open ai from getting profit is to prevent it from getting big to the point that the rest are worthless. anyone who has a foot in AI would not want open ai to go for profit, as that on its own is a limiter to how fast it can grow. Strictly speaking, any non-profit organization has a significantly harder time to expand than ones that are for profit.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It seems like besides Linux itself, most successful open source projects go for profit. When users don't like the changes, they fork and keep going.

Like MySQL going for profit with a sell out to Oracle and MariaDB becoming the most popular fork of MySQL.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Not true, many big open source projects stay open.

A good example… PyTorch. Which Meta funds.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›