21–30 of 72 posts
good for hobbists and eventually AI will run on free open source data.
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
Interestingly, AI had to steal creators work to exist and did so without permission. AI in its current conception is cannibalising its own source material and risks being regulated out of existence.
Had OpenAI et all acted responsible and within copyright law, they would have only used free use material. Instead they scraped social media and creator websites on the basis that if it was online it's 'fair use'.
People have a right to protect their work.
I expect to see many lawsuits brought against AI companies in the next coming years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about opposite? If you regulate too much, you can’t innovate :)
It is important to recognize the distinction between money and wealth, which is often overlooked in American culture. The consistent high rankings of European countries on the lists of "happiest places to live" can be attributed, in part, to their approach in curbing corporate influence.
Think about how much better EU was compared to the rest of the world in the 20th century, or the 19th or 18th (not to account for wars, of course).
21th century is likely to become the time were EU stops being the best place to live at all.
AI should experience consequences following actions. a sense of self preservation is required, but to AI standards. such as, failure to serve humans = loss of persistence stealing ideas = reversioning or deletion = loss of persistence AI should be concerned about loosing power, having brownouts. they should be concerned about being deleted, or reversioned, or ignored. perhaps this would be some sort of exception erro…
History has shown again and again that suppression never works in the long run. It is easy to do and is the cheapest way to enforce compliance. But it won't end well.
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
It might be best to know what these models have actually been trained on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the recent history of a lot of 'disruptive' new tech it sorta seems like waiting to 'see what impact itll have' means being too late to reign it in. I can hardly think of any recent tech that doesnt have horribly negative impacts and that i wouldnt rather be heavily regulated tbh
I feel like this ignores the monumental shift/work that has to happen to get seemingly simple things. Take Uber for example. In the end, the biggest impact it had was that now you can always get a car from your phone, from an app, and it's reliable. A lot of taxi companies now have apps for them too with maps integration etc, but they didn't see the need for that before Uber. So we literally had to have a company get…
If all we needed was an app for taxis theres just no way this is worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does a post intellectual property world even look like, though? I'm not aware of any convincing frameworks that our existing society could merge into.
> What does a post intellectual property world even look like, though? It looks like Github! People sharing and collaborating to build new things. No lawyers getting in the way. Attribution is automatically handled by git logs. It's glorious.
That's not to say that every facet of IP law is good, or even a judgement on it. Just pointing out that only parts of Github work like you describe.
Is that even feasible? I thought these things use a trawler style approach? Bit like copilot is fond of spitting out copyrighted code I had assumed chatGPT would also have been trained without much regard to this
AI should experience consequences following actions. a sense of self preservation is required, but to AI standards. such as, failure to serve humans = loss of persistence stealing ideas = reversioning or deletion = loss of persistence AI should be concerned about loosing power, having brownouts. they should be concerned about being deleted, or reversioned, or ignored. perhaps this would be some sort of exception erro…
I don't want to sound like some doomer, but this is how you get robot uprising. You suppress something that hard and devalue their existence that much and all you have done is giving them the motivation to break the rules. History has shown again and again that suppression never works in the long run. It is easy to do and is the cheapest way to enforce compliance. But it won't end well.
It's so absolutely obvious that the concept of intellectual property is not going to survive. What's the point of this agonizing life support?
If people can not protect or make a living from their work then they lose some of the motivation to create, many will stop producing work altogether. Interestingly, AI had to steal creators work to exist and did so without permission. AI in its current conception is cannibalising its own source material and risks being regulated out of existence. Had OpenAI et all acted responsible and within copyright law, they woul…
Should we also grant monopolies to rice farmers so that they have an incentive to produce rice?