Fair enough, but even if the model is open source, you still have no control or knowledge of how it was developed or what biases it might have baked in. AI is by definition a black box, even to the people who made it, it can’t even be decompiled like a normal program.
The fact that it’s a black box is not really a show stopper in any meaningful way. We don’t know minds of other people, yet we can clearly collaborate effectively to solve problems despite that.
I mean, China has the death penalty for drug distribution, which is supported by the majority of Chinese citizens.
Sure, there are tough laws against drugs in China as well as other countries, but that has not eliminated use drugs entirely. Meanwhile, there is no indication that any state would ban the use of AI, and it would be self defeating to do so because it would make it less competitive against the states that don’t. The reality is that there are huge financial incentives for developing this technology for both private companies and state level actors. This tech is here to stay, and I don’t think it makes any sense to pretend otherwise. The question is how this tech will evolve going forward and how it will be governed.
I never thought of it in terms of copyright infringement, but in terms of reaping the labour of proletarians while giving them nothing in return.
I don’t see it that way at all. Open-source AI models, when decoupled from profit motives, have the potential to democratize creativity in unprecedented ways. They enable a nurse to visualize a protest poster, a factory worker to draft a union newsletter, or a tenant to simulate rent-strike scenarios. This is no different from fanfiction writers reimagining Star Wars or street artists riffing on Warhol. It’s just collective culture remixing itself, as it always has. The threat arises when corporations monopolize these tools to replace paid labor with automated profit engines. But the paradox here is that boycotting AI in grassroots spaces does nothing to hinder corporate adoption. It only surrenders a potent tool to the enemy. Why deny ourselves the capacity to create, organize, and imagine more freely, while Amazon and Meta invest billions to weaponize that same capacity against us?
And I have a concrete example I can give you here because AI tools like ComfyUI are already being used by artists, and they’re particularly useful for smaller studios. These tools can streamline the workflow, and allow for a faster transition from the initial sketch to a final product. They can also facilitate an iterative and dynamic creative process, encouraging experimentation and leading to unexpected results. Far from replacing artists, AI expands their creative potential, enabling smaller teams to tackle more ambitious projects.
Imagine working your whole life on open source projects only for no company to want to hire you because they’re using AI trained on your open source work to do what they would have paid you to do.
Right, I would not like a company to build a proprietary model using my open source work. However, I’d have absolutely no problem with an open model being trained on my open source. As long as the model is distributed under an open license then anybody can benefit from it, and use it in any way that makes sense to them. I see it exactly the same as open sourcing code.
I do think capitalists will use this technology to harm works, that’s been the case with every advance in automation. However, I do think it’s going to be a far better scenario if this tech is open and can be used by workers on their own terms. The worst possible outcome is that we have corporations running models as subscription services, and people end up having to use them like serfs. I see open source models as workers owning the means of production.
Honestly, I’ve been doing some recreational thinking about this whole thing, and I find myself agreeing with you. You brought up good points I hadn’t considered, thanks!
You can tune models for specific outputs actually. There are even projects that are exploring making models adapt and learn over time. https://github.com/babycommando/neuralgraffiti
The fact that it’s a black box is not really a show stopper in any meaningful way. We don’t know minds of other people, yet we can clearly collaborate effectively to solve problems despite that.
Sure, there are tough laws against drugs in China as well as other countries, but that has not eliminated use drugs entirely. Meanwhile, there is no indication that any state would ban the use of AI, and it would be self defeating to do so because it would make it less competitive against the states that don’t. The reality is that there are huge financial incentives for developing this technology for both private companies and state level actors. This tech is here to stay, and I don’t think it makes any sense to pretend otherwise. The question is how this tech will evolve going forward and how it will be governed.
I don’t see it that way at all. Open-source AI models, when decoupled from profit motives, have the potential to democratize creativity in unprecedented ways. They enable a nurse to visualize a protest poster, a factory worker to draft a union newsletter, or a tenant to simulate rent-strike scenarios. This is no different from fanfiction writers reimagining Star Wars or street artists riffing on Warhol. It’s just collective culture remixing itself, as it always has. The threat arises when corporations monopolize these tools to replace paid labor with automated profit engines. But the paradox here is that boycotting AI in grassroots spaces does nothing to hinder corporate adoption. It only surrenders a potent tool to the enemy. Why deny ourselves the capacity to create, organize, and imagine more freely, while Amazon and Meta invest billions to weaponize that same capacity against us?
And I have a concrete example I can give you here because AI tools like ComfyUI are already being used by artists, and they’re particularly useful for smaller studios. These tools can streamline the workflow, and allow for a faster transition from the initial sketch to a final product. They can also facilitate an iterative and dynamic creative process, encouraging experimentation and leading to unexpected results. Far from replacing artists, AI expands their creative potential, enabling smaller teams to tackle more ambitious projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=envMzAxCRbw
Right, I would not like a company to build a proprietary model using my open source work. However, I’d have absolutely no problem with an open model being trained on my open source. As long as the model is distributed under an open license then anybody can benefit from it, and use it in any way that makes sense to them. I see it exactly the same as open sourcing code.
I do think capitalists will use this technology to harm works, that’s been the case with every advance in automation. However, I do think it’s going to be a far better scenario if this tech is open and can be used by workers on their own terms. The worst possible outcome is that we have corporations running models as subscription services, and people end up having to use them like serfs. I see open source models as workers owning the means of production.
Honestly, I’ve been doing some recreational thinking about this whole thing, and I find myself agreeing with you. You brought up good points I hadn’t considered, thanks!
O7