Earlier quoted context omitted.
what twigs me about the argument against fair use (whereby AI ostensibly "replicates" the content competitively against the original) is that it assumes a model trained on journalism produces journalism or is designed to produce it. the argument against that stance would be easy to make.
The model isn't trained on journalism only, you can't even isolate its training like that. It's trained on human writing in general and across specialties, and it's designed to compete with humans on what humans do with text , of which journalism is merely a tiny special case. I think the only principle positions to be had here is to either ignore IP rights for LLM training, or give up entirely, because a model desig…
IP rights, or even IP itself as a concept, isn’t fundamental to existence nor the default state of nature. They are contigent concepts, contigent on many factors.
e.g. It has to be actively, continuously, maintained as time advances. There could be disagreements on how often, such as per annum, per case, per WIPO meeting, etc…
But if no such activity occurs over a very long time, say a century, then any claims to any IP will likely, by default, be extinguished.
So nobody needs to do anything for it all to become irrelevant. That will automatically occur given enough time…