21–30 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the answer “yes” or “no”? I suspect the actual answer is “those with wealth will continue to amass it and those without will struggle more”
A: No [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
No subscription and archive.is is broken on 1.1 but it seems like the conversation is finally moving in a good direction. I'm very very tentatively hopeful that we might see some reduction of IP rights in my lifetime. It's going to be a long hard fight but maybe, just maybe we will see people wake the fuck up and realize how important the building up the fucking commons is to the progress of all humanity.
No, it will result in a strengthening. It raises the value of things previous unprotectable, and thus will raise the incentive to get them protected. The Wild West of the AI world today will rapidly get captured because by the time you've amassed the resources to put up a credible AI, you're already a fairly large corporation. The scale of time necessary to get new protections passed is roughly comparable to the scal…
On the other hand, this is problematic because it'll slow down the development of the self-hostable models outside of the community moving to a darkweb like model where they stay beyond the reach of the legal system.
For context, I.P. here = Intelectual Property and not Internet Protocol address. You can save a click today.
Is the answer “yes” or “no”? I suspect the actual answer is “those with wealth will continue to amass it and those without will struggle more”
It's been dead a while because of big tech. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter - they have no way of effectively managing IP and so you basically see people's stolen content and they monetise it, so TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle. Purely IMO, big tech normalised the taking of other people's content, and it's getting to the point where content creators (as in, ones that are capable of producing…
It's been dead a while because of big tech. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter - they have no way of effectively managing IP and so you basically see people's stolen content and they monetise it, so TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle. Purely IMO, big tech normalised the taking of other people's content, and it's getting to the point where content creators (as in, ones that are capable of producing…
> big tech normalised the taking of other people's content This was normalized by large media companies long before big tech.
No subscription and archive.is is broken on 1.1 but it seems like the conversation is finally moving in a good direction. I'm very very tentatively hopeful that we might see some reduction of IP rights in my lifetime. It's going to be a long hard fight but maybe, just maybe we will see people wake the fuck up and realize how important the building up the fucking commons is to the progress of all humanity.
It's rich to see people talk about the commons like AI models aren't a massive tragedy of the commons.
If you have smart robots in the home, much less AGI, what's the plan on restricting them? Sorry robot, you may only learn this limited set of skills, you're not allowed to create, because you've seen too much and might be too good at learning and producing.
They'll be incredibly metered if they're not allowed to learn and produce at a high capability.
And if we're talking about AGI, you can never realistically reach it if you put it in the straightjacket required to protect IP as things are today. Sorry all-knowing AGI god, you may not make images that look too much like XYZ. In fact, you're not allowed to even see any of it because of your capabilities. In fact, Disney has decided through the copyright act of 2042 that you're not even allowed access to the Internet (or magazines, or radio, or music, or TV).
It can't be AGI if it can't create. Forget about trained on ('just do not train it on material with copyright'), it'll self-train, and then what? Well then you can't even let it self-train, ie no AGI is possible.
It's going to be either or. Either the IP laws get changed, or you get no AGI. The only thing possible would be extremely boxed off, narrow, high capability AI.
Intellectual property isn't.
That's too much money for anybody in charge to let die. They're much more likely to nuke AI.