18
Audio Flamingo 3 - Fully Open Large Audio Language Models
(research.nvidia.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)
LocalLLaMA
3413 readers
24 users here now
Welcome to LocalLLaMA! Here we discuss running and developing machine learning models at home. Lets explore cutting edge open source neural network technology together.
Get support from the community! Ask questions, share prompts, discuss benchmarks, get hyped at the latest and greatest model releases! Enjoy talking about our awesome hobby.
As ambassadors of the self-hosting machine learning community, we strive to support each other and share our enthusiasm in a positive constructive way.
Rules:
Rule 1 - No harassment or personal character attacks of community members. I.E no namecalling, no generalizing entire groups of people that make up our community, no baseless personal insults.
Rule 2 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning models to cryptocurrency. I.E no comparing the usefulness of models to that of NFTs, no comparing the resource usage required to train a model is anything close to maintaining a blockchain/ mining for crypto, no implying its just a fad/bubble that will leave people with nothing of value when it burst.
Rule 3 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning to simple text prediction algorithms. I.E statements such as "llms are basically just simple text predictions like what your phone keyboard autocorrect uses, and they're still using the same algorithms since <over 10 years ago>.
Rule 4 - No implying that models are devoid of purpose or potential for enriching peoples lives.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sorry, but you have not understood the concept yet.
You demand that AI companies should work for free and give things away for free. But they also should pay people that make no contribution.
They do, just like farmers. If people did not find their services beneficial, they would not pay.
This is called a barrier to entry (Marktschranke).
It doesn't have to be very bad. For example, you can't just become a farmer. You must buy a farm. There are problems with that, but they aren't big. Food is cheap and plentiful.
The people who make AIs want to be paid for their work. The people who build and maintain the datacenters, the hardware, the electricity, and so on. Should they work for free?
The problem starts when people want more than that.
Have you ever noticed how many of these books were written in the USA and cheaply translated into German?
No. I think you misunderstood. An exclusive copyright is a monopoly by definition.
They were legally required to do that. Downloading the books for their purposes was fair use. Uploading would certainly not have been.
I don't understand how this accusation makes the slightest bit of sense. These torrents are a violation of EU copyright law. Your argument means that these torrents shouldn't exist in the first place. You are not demanding that Meta should be allowed to upload these books. You're saying they shouldn't be allowed to download them, either.
The issue is just, I don't see how any of those are arguments to distinguish between the two. I can twist them so almost every single argument applies to book authors and I don't see any contradictions with that:
"You demand that ~~AI companies~~ [book authors] should work for free and give things away for free. But they also should pay [in content] people that make no contribution."
"They do [create something], just like farmers. If people did not find their services beneficial, they would not pay [for the books]."
"[The price of the pile of books] is called a barrier to entry (Marktschranke)."
"It doesn't have to be very bad. For example, you can't just become ~~a farmer~~ [a big AI company]. You must buy ~~a farm~~ [data]. There are problems with that, but they aren't big. ~~Food~~ [data] is cheap and plentiful."
Alright, we have the one issue here, because data is cheap and plentiful in the digital age, and they gather my data as well, but theoretically that should be limited in the EU, and we get the copyright issue with the books here. But I don't think the farmer/AI comparison goes all the way. For example graphics cards are the opposite of cheap and plentiful, and there isn't a problem with that. So it's not like there is a rule that resources or products have to be cheap or plentiful. It's surely benefitial, but there's also the real world, like with GPUs. And farmers also use intellectual property crops, and they use machines that cost hundreds of tousands of dollars. Sometimes you just have to pay for supplies and resources. That applies to farmers and for AI companies buying their supplies.
"The people who make ~~AIs~~ [books] want to be paid for their work. The people who build and maintain the ~~datacenters~~ [book press], the ~~hardware~~ [online shops and distribution chain], the ~~electricity~~ [author's computer and studies and travels for the content], and so on. Should they work for free?"
"The problem starts when people want more than that."
I really fail to see the difference here. Unless I start with a proposition: writing books is not a valid business model, but AI is... But why is that? Both are built on the grounds of intellectual property, both are products and require effort to be created. Why does a book author work 6 months and doesn't get paid for his job and an AI researcher works for 6 months and needs to be paid?
Or phrased differently - Why isn't it a valid product if a human reads a lot and then creates something and wants to sell the result... But if a big company devises a mechanism that reads a lot and they want to sell the result, then it suddenly is a valid product?
Why do you not want book authors to be paid now?
Because that's the Fair Use. It doesn't involve monetary compensation for the use. Meaning they don't get paid.
Why do you want fair use to work that way?
You said you praise the American Fair Use model. I said I don't like it to work in that way. And most of all not grant exceptions to certain business models. And I agreed that there are some issues in the underlying copyright model, which might change the entire picture if addressed. I mean the interesting question is: How should copyright work in conjunction with AI and in general? And who needs to be compensated how?
I understand, But why do you want a fair use model that means that authors don't get paid at all?
I'm fairly sure the term "Fair Use" by definition means unauthorized and unpaid use. I mean we can try to twist the meaning of these words. Or maybe I misunderstood it. But paying would be kind of contradictory to the entire concept. It'd be (forced) licensing or something within the realm of copyright, depending on what you mean. But I think we need a new/different word for it.
In the US, it almost certainly wouldn't be fair use if it meant that the author doesn't get paid. Of course, you don't get paid for the fair use, but there are a lot of things you don't get money for.
You're talking about authors not being paid at all. What's that about?
That was about abolishing copyright altogether. Since we discussed that as an option. We're now discussing what I called "subsidies" earlier. Authors do get paid, but for certain "uses" and not for others. And authors get financed by a different group of people.
In your example with the farmers, they're not paid by me buying the product in the supermarket and that money gets handed down the chain to every supplier... But Nestle got the cocoa beans for free and society now gets to pay the farmer by a different method. Unless you have a specific proposal here, that'd be likely the definition of a subsidy to help Nestle and make their products look cheaper on a supermarket shelf.
Let me try to follow this.
A cocoa farmer is paid for some uses of their cocoa beans but not others. For example, Nestle has to pay to turn their beans into chocolate and sell it in supermarkets. On the other hand, no one has to pay to take a photo of their beans and sell it to Nestle for ads. Right? I'm with you so far.
I don't get the next step. Because some uses are free, all uses should be free? Then Nestle gets a subsidy and we pay the farmers some other way?
Pretty much. The AI companies are Nestle in that analogy. They get their supplies for free?! While I and everyone else had to pay for the very same supplies, when I needed the textbook to study CS to become a computer programmer. The professor gets to brush up their salary, and I think it's a bit unfair to me that I'm asked to take out 60€ from my mediocre turnover of a few hundred bucks a month as a student. I think I should have been asked to pay 30€ and a company with a billion dollar budget should be asked to pay something like 100€ since they make use of it multiple times. And they should hand that cost down to their customers. And my use was transformative as well. The information from the textbook is now modeled in my brain.
I think the analogy with the picture is kind of alright as well. I mean analogies are hard here, since it's a labour intensive task to duplicate crops and coffee beans, while duplication is pretty much for free in case of information. And it doesn't take away the original.
Now what is a picture? It's kind of a summary, a depiction of the outer appearance. And snapping a picture of a book cover would make sense for Fair Use. That's kind if what it's made for. If you now snap a picture of each and every one of the 400 pages inside, that's where law says Fair Use stops. And what do AI companies use for training? A picture/summary of the book? Or the content within?
Now I'm even more confused.
Your professor abused their monopoly. That's the sort of thing I've been condemning. You are basically fine with that. You just think they should adjust their price policy to income. Well, yes, that would be the profit maximizing move. You make everyone pay as much as they are able to. That's what the copyright lobby wants. But I have to point out: There is no reason why they should lower the price for you. After all, you were able to pay. Rather, there seems to be room to raise the price.
Do you actually think this kind of monopoly abuse is a good thing?
No, that's not what the law says. I think, the problem is that we have different ideas over how Fair Use in the US actually works. I'll have to think about that.
Well, it's complicated. And depends on which theoretical option we're talking about. I for example think writing the textbook when you're the professor and selling that to the students is a very bad thing. I'm not fine with that at all. They should be funded mainly by taxpayer money (at least that's what we do). And the fruit of their labour should then be owned by the taxpayer. The US does similar things, like government texts, NASA pictures etc used to be owned by the people. And everyone is "the people" from a random student to a big AI company.
It's a bit a special example though, and doesn't translate 1:1 to the private book market.
I believe your regular book author does it the other way around. They aren't commissioned by anyone, they generally write it and only after that does the product get monetized. And I believe that's where your "rent-seeking" comes in. Somehow the author managed to feed themselves for the time it took them to write the book, and now they have it as an asset which they can try to turn into as much money as they can. It's two things mushed together. Their valid desire to eat and be compensated for their labour, plus the rent from the asset which might be huge for popular books and doesn't reflect labour cost. And all of this is very different from a university professor with a salary. It could and should be decoupled for them. But it's straight up impossible for the majority of authors, given our current copyright model. I think that's a fundamental limitation of capitalism.
And I wonder if those regulatory mechanisms are even applied correctly. I had that with the textbooks in university to some lesser extent. School was fine. But I heard in the US for example education is a complete rip-off and we get news articles every year on how parents can't afford the several hundred bucks for school textbooks for their children. And that is despite a different copyright doctrine. Maybe our model here leads to better results some times, I don't really know.
And concerning the Fair Use: Is there law which offers an option for compensation? I thought that was contradictory per definition.
Hmm. You seem to treat an economic rent as being the same as a return on investment. Any particular reason for that?
You aren't fine with that. But why are you fine with the copyright industry doing it to everyone in the country?