- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
Executives working on AI at Microsoft and OpenAI admitted what its critics have been saying all along: Large language models are predatory pieces of technology that have been built on what a Microsoft executive called “an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” and the “largest theft of labor in human history.” An internal Microsoft document said generative AI products have created a “doom loop” that is killing “the entire web.”
Those statements and a series of other mask-off moments feature heavily in an unredacted court filing that was unsealed Thursday in the behemoth New York Times vs OpenAI copyright lawsuit that has been winding its way through the court system for years. In a filing asking for summary judgment (basically, a filing with the court asking it to rule), lawyers for the New York Times laid out a series of admissions made by Microsoft and OpenAI executives in documents and depositions that until now had remained either sealed or redacted at the request of Microsoft and OpenAI.
It’s easy to see why the AI companies wanted to hide this from the public. The statements, taken together, are some of the most damning indictments of the ways LLMs were trained, how they worked, and the immediate threat they pose to human labor. It is a reminder that even as AI becomes more powerful and companies try to shift the narrative to the supposed existential risk of “superintelligent” AI, the tools they have already built were created by stealing from human creativity and labor and are by definition existential threats to the human labor market.
But would it be worth it if they had to pay the creative costs for it?
They are only worth it now cause it doesn’t include that AND it’s subsidized by investor money.
From an economic viewpoint AI companies are not worth is as it is now. OpenAI and Anthropic are hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and will never make a profit. Same goes for the AI subsidiaries of Microsoft, Meta, Google etc, except they are just leeching off of the mother companies and hiding their figures among their finances. Paying creators for their data would make very little difference in their overall finances.
This is why I’ve been arguing to anyone who will listen for like four years now. If this tech is so amazing, someone will figure out a way to make money off of it. Right? The fact that it’s been 4+ years and no one has made a damn cent off of it should be making more people skeptical. The fact that 4 years ago it was widely celebrated even though no one had a plan to make a damn cent off of it should have made more people skeptical back then. It’s weird that I have to keep arguing this with folks.
no and they already admitted as much
I think the way they are operating now is commonly called predatory pricing.
I don’t know if there is a potential for a profitable business that covers all the costs. Possibly the direct costs, but I think not if they had to fairly compensate those who created the intellectual property they consumed to train their models, and much less likely if they had to pay the indirect costs. They might, some day, compensate creators a little, like Google shares a pittance of their ad revenue with some creators. But it is unlikely to be anything near a living wage.
AND it’s subsidised by too big a supply of compute power - Microsoft prints demand for Azure, by buying ownership stakes in openAI through the grant of Azure credits. There’s too much available compute.