gpt-3 and gpt-4

Programming applications for making music on Linux.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

Post Reply
Basslint
Established Member
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:25 pm
Location: Italy
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 298 times

Re: gpt-3 and gpt-4

Post by Basslint »

Thank you for sharing, however I think a huge dump of binary files and an OSI-incompatible license seem to me like a step back for computing in general, much less software freedom. If this is the future of computing, I think I will stay in the past :D
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. [Acts 4:32]

Please donate time (even bug reports) or money to libre software 🎁

Jam on openSUSE + GeekosDAW!
Basslint
Established Member
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:25 pm
Location: Italy
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 298 times

Re: gpt-3 and gpt-4

Post by Basslint »

artix_linux_user wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 6:49 am

Thank you for your thoughts on the license.
Being no patent lawyer I surely don`t know and though I am thanking you for your words, here.
As I am reading the license:
The Responsible AI License allows users to take advantage of the model in a wide range of settings (including free use and redistribution) as long as they respect the specific use case restrictions outlined, which correspond to model applications the licensor deems ill-suited for the model or are likely to cause harm.

As said and written before, I can not say much about license, but that doesn`t sound so bad, or?
Foss is the greatest things in the tech world, yes!
But does the above license really stinks? Why?
thanks.

I'll give you my two-cents as a non-lawyer, too. Free software shifts most of the moral responsibility onto users. It says, "here is the software, you are free to do whatever you want with it". It's akin to a shop selling you a knife. (not a gun, because a knife can be used for other purposes than harming).

This license gives you 13 limitations. By reading them, I have the impression that the only licit use is strictly personal, which is fine but I would have preferred a simpler license to say that. It's akin to a shop selling you a knife and telling you what you can't do with it, leaving you to figure out if you can use it to cut onions (because onions make some people cry, does that count as harmful behavior?).

I am fine with banning predictive policing, bot spamming, harming people and other stuff, but those things should be banned by the legal system and enforced by proper law enforcement. I feel like a license is not the right place for policing.

Besides, those 13 limitations are pretty unclear. Limitation 1 for example, says that you can't use it to break the law. But the law already says it! And besides, bad people will happily violate all those terms, so they would only affect people who work within the legal system.

Edit: disclaimer, I am pretty AI-skeptic and my views reflect that. Not saying it can't be useful or that it doesn't work, I look at the science behind it with wonder and awe and I think it can be used to help society in some (very limited) matters (such as defusing landmines), I just think it generally enforces a materialistic view of life, which I don't like.

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. [Acts 4:32]

Please donate time (even bug reports) or money to libre software 🎁

Jam on openSUSE + GeekosDAW!
Post Reply