For a language processing SDK to be useful, it needs to work inside an offline capable app on my phone. But doesn't that make it way too easy for someone to extract the network and use it to train their "own" AI with distillation learning?
And if they instead only run the AI on their servers so users need to connect through an API, how is that any different from the language AI APIs that Google, Amazon, Microsoft already offer?
And let's say they foot the bill to train a new type of language AI, what stops the big cloud providers from just training something similar? A 200mio non-recurring expense won't stop Google if you have proven that it's a viable business for you.
Asking because I'm pondering similar issues for my AI project.
> But doesn't that make it way too easy for someone to extract the network and use it to train their "own" AI with distillation learning?
If you're targeting medium-to-large businesses, I suspect lots of them will buy a licence just to make sure they can't be sued (e.g. https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/googles-9-lines/), even if it would be realistically near-impossible to detect if they 'stole' it.
For a language processing SDK to be useful, it needs to work inside an offline capable app on my phone. But doesn't that make it way too easy for someone to extract the network and use it to train their "own" AI with distillation learning?
And if they instead only run the AI on their servers so users need to connect through an API, how is that any different from the language AI APIs that Google, Amazon, Microsoft already offer?
And let's say they foot the bill to train a new type of language AI, what stops the big cloud providers from just training something similar? A 200mio non-recurring expense won't stop Google if you have proven that it's a viable business for you.
Asking because I'm pondering similar issues for my AI project.