Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

sanders.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 290 posts

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#281

Post by nerdyadventurer »

fny wrote: post #22

> A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations I know many here would scoff at nationalizing a private company, but AI is a usurpation of human knowledge and quite literally at times. (Every AI company was embroiled in copyright lawsuits and lord knows what Qwen et al are up to.) In…

> I know many here would scoff at nationalizing a private company

Really? Do US public think like that, no wonder organization like IMF want to privatize national companies.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#283

Post by _DeadFred_ »

csallen wrote: post #215
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your product has no value without access by your company/you agents of someone elses work, you are a derivative work. The value of your product has at least in part been derived from other's copyrighted work. The fact that these companies don't just remove copyrighted work from their product creation chain shows that they feel they are deriving value from the copyrighted works that they wouldn't have if they didn'…

"Deriving value" from what came before doesn't mean that what came before is owed some sort of check. And thank god, or the world would be a horrible place full of rent seekers.

As I stated specifically "If your product has no value without access by your company/you agents of someone elses work"

If THE PRODUCT (not the creators) requires access to someone else's work, to generate it's value it is derivative.'

This is actual law, with actual thought put into it, created over 300 years and is a huge part of what has created the modern world. No one can tell me why this thinking should be suddenly thrown out in a reasoned way that again, addresses the 300 years of things that has gone into this.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#284

Post by csallen »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #283
csallen wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Deriving value" from what came before doesn't mean that what came before is owed some sort of check. And thank god, or the world would be a horrible place full of rent seekers.

As I stated specifically "If your product has no value without access by your company/you agents of someone elses work" If THE PRODUCT (not the creators) requires access to someone else's work, to generate it's value it is derivative.' This is actual law, with actual thought put into it, created over 300 years and is a huge part of what has created the modern world. No one can tell me why this thinking should be sudd…

[dead]

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#288

Post by zajio1am »

50% property tax is just seizure without compensation, which is generally considered human rights violation.

If government wants 50% of shares, it can just buy it (or expropriate it with compensation) and use its ability to get cheap long-term loans to finance it.

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#289

Post by stevenalowe »

defrost wrote: post #287
stevenalowe wrote: post #286

Cool cool can we own half of all of the other industries that benefit from the commons? Oil, gas, gold,…?

If you don't already, you should have a stake in your countries natural resources, such as Norway's stake in their oil.

That would be great but apparently it doesn’t work like that here (except Alaska)

Re: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies

#290

Post by shadowtree »

snake42 wrote: post #176
shadowtree wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ahistoric drivel. China and Russia are simple examples of the fallout of "cutting king's heads". So awesome in China that they went straight back to a lifetime emperor now. The French Revolution and its fallout (communism, fascism) killed more humans than any other historic movement, triggering 2 world wars, including numerous genocides.

Blaming an event that happened in 1789 for the first and second world wars seems incredibly far fetched. Maybe we should blame the aggressors who started the wars.

Lernen Sie Geschichte! -- Fred Sinowatz
Post reply on HN