Artificial Intelligence Systems and Copyright \ stacker news ~AI

pull down to refresh

Artificial Intelligence Systems and Copyright dvorak.substack.com/p/artificial-intelligence-systems-and

tldr the author argues existing law covers copyright infringement well enough, because human and neural networks are alike so the remixes and recreations of one are like the other.

If one can accept that notion, which has been under development for over 40 years by my count, then all creative human endeavor itself has to be a copyright violation. We all use neural networks (our brains) to take in as much information as possible (most of it copyrighted). We reorganize it and also answer questions in the same way AI does.

They do end up admitting the situation is somewhat different though as the laws were created assuming a human couldn't store a piece of work perfectly in memory. Their solution is to ask machines to do what humans do: buy a copy/license of the work.

This makes sense to me, but I also don't rely on copyright to get paid.

view all related items

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5h

What do you make of this, as a FOSS developer? Clearly, you see your code as being information which should be freely shared with the public, but you are looking to other means to get compensated for the work you put in in writing it.

Could the same not also be done by creators of other information based content? Make the information free but find other means to get compensated? Or is it just easier to do that with software than with other forms of writing?

30 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 5h

I don't expect to be compensated for the code. I believe information wants to be free and the only way to capture value (voluntarily) is by providing a service based on that information.

I think that's ultimately why substack works better than medium - it is paid for and marketed as delivery and discovery of information. It's why they also have chat and comments. Beyond goodwill and support, we will pay for everything but the information itself.

I sympathize with content producers though. Producing information is hard enough already. No one wants to have to provide a service too.

Or is it just easier to do that with software than with other forms of writing?

It's more common, and more scalable given the nature of the medium, but I'm not sure it's easier. I do think other content producers are learning information wants to be free later than programmers did.

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 5h

That said, I do get proper pissed when I know people are producing derivative work AND treat me like shit in a show of how original their work is.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 5h

Sounds like you've had that happen before?

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 5h

It's just what happens when the nature of being a producer meets the nature of other humans producing.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 6h

I have some modest sympathy- laws make assumptions that the ecology in which they were written will persist, and strain under the march of technology, among other things. But also, copyright has been such horseshit for so long that my sympathy has a hard ceiling.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lrm_btc 5h

If you were to look at the humans from an alien perspective, you would see that intellectual property law is just a giant endeavor of withholding information from one another.

I believe the humans will come to see the true value of information as an infinitely reproducible resource and that the unrestricted freedom of information will unlock the next paradigm in technological progress.

I believe that's still a ways off, though.