> Please, understand that morality and legality are different concepts.
You don't believe that fair use is a moral issue? I think obviously it is.
> So something is stolen only if its gone?
Yes, that's the definition of stolen.
> Can I walk into your house, take some stuff and give it back before you notice and it's ok then?
I was stolen and then it was returned. Very simple. If you could come to my house and can copy my car so that you can have one, please go ahead and do that.
> Consent matters. It's not just a sex thing.
When you've created an artificial system to restrict the passing of knowledge and someone abuses that system then consent does matter. But that's putting the cart before the horse.
> You just want to benefit from other people's work without even as much as attempting to negotiate how much it's worth. You see an opportunity to take and you do.
Absolutely not. I make my money developing intellectual property. I also develop intellectual property on my own time and give it away freely. I also use intellectual property that has been given away freely. I'm not sure what this ad hominem attack adds to the conversation though.
> Ownership is not a real thing either.
I agree. I think there should be restrictions on taking from the commons and gating it off as ownership as well. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be owernship but it's not some kind of unrestricted natural law either. It's a system we created to balance the needs of society as whole against the needs of the individual.
> My definition of "learning" is that it must be done by a human.
I hope you don't have any pets because obviously that definition is way too limited.
> You're onto something but I can't say whether I agree or not unless you specify who belongs to each group.
Corporations own everything -- both real property and intellectual property. You were worried about owners of AI companies controlling the entire economy and ownership of ideas is actually how they got that control and how they maintain it.
> I am highly confident if it's replaced with something better, it'll just benefit those who already have an advantage.
It currently benefits those who have an advantage -- they seek to both maintain and expand their control.
> All real-world power comes from violence materialized or threatened, direct or indirect.
> Previously you needed to convince people to do violence for you. With AI, you just prompt it.
To what end, everyone is dead now. Power over nothing.
> Piracy? If something is copyrighted but not commercially available, it's also unlikely you'll get sued.
No... it's actually the use of that culture. Yes you can pirate it but can you remix into a song? Can you make a movie about it? Can you write about it? We have all this new material created from works from hundreds of years ago and then one hundred years with nothing.
> Do you think any system of rules should be thrown out or is copyright somehow uniquely bad?
Copyright is not uniquely bad. But neither is AI. It's simply remixing the knowledge that we have. Copyright protects a expression of an idea, not the idea itself. If AI can take all those expressions of ideas and distill them down and produce something from it, a different expression, then it should be able to do that. We shouldn't be gatekeeping ideas.