I’m not sure I buy this argument but I will admit that I’m not extremely familiar with the hoarding or sharing of trade secrets prior to patents. Any recommended reading on this topic? If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.

I don’t see how this applies to copyright though. Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them? I don’t see the risk here.

Oh so they’re actually created the same way as a zip file? That makes sense I guess. Thanks.

How do these contain random files like this? Isn’t it just a file that applies some kind of visual effect to the media player?

I’m saying we’ve already allowed corporate exploitation of human culture for centuries. But yes, by all means, if AI is the last straw then I’m with you. But I want people to see the broader picture and not hyperfocus only on AI.

I’m not saying the process is exactly the same but conceptually it’s quite similar. Humans don’t create original ideas. They build on what came before. Maybe a truly brilliant artist or inventor adds 1% new ideas. That’s not enough to justify the extremely broad ownership of ideas that exists in our society. These laws implicitly assume that ideas were created from nothing through the sheer brilliance of the creator. Pure nonsense.

Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years. It’s how we built everything we have. Ideas and art were not meant to be owned. The very concept of owning something non-physical is violent and authoritarian in nature. Without physical possession, the only way IP laws can be enforced is a global police empire, which the US has successfully created for its own enrichment at the expense of the global poor.

So in that context, the fact that AI is borrowing human ideas and then profiting from it doesn’t bother me any more than that humans do the same thing.

The “issue” is that this logic applies to all human creations as well.

Damn that seems like a core feature. Not sure I’ll use it without this.

Insider from OpenAI PR department speaks out!

Ok, this doesn’t seem to be the overall picture in the economic literature but thanks for sharing your experience. Given that, I can see why you hold those views.

So anecdotal? Have you worked in a worker’s coop? It’s hard to see how some workers taking advantage of others would be worse than the owner taking advantage of them but if you have seen it maybe you can explain how.

Love me some Anark—I did watch this but I don’t remember seeing much detail on how community governance works. Is it in there and I missed it?

So you don’t have one then? I’ve seen plenty of research on worker coops, and I’ve never seen any that supports this idea. Without any evidence I’m left to conclude that this is just capitalist apologia.

Source?

I think workers coops are definitely better than private ownership but it seems like there should also be some involvement of the broader community being served (or negatively impacted in some cases) in the case of non-profits.

I would like to do more research on alternative non-profit governance structures. In my experience, non-profit boards seem to be just another mechanism by which the wealthy control decision-making in society. However, I don’t know what kind of structure would be better.

The issue is not that it doesn’t know everything, it’s that it doesn’t know anything. It’s not capable of knowledge in the sense that humans are. All it does is probabilistically predict which sequence of words might best respond to a prompt, based on huge amounts of human text that it was trained on.

Part of the issue is how will you train the model to know which things in its training data are factual and which are not? An incredible amount of human curation already goes into just avoiding the model from repeating offensive things, but the realm of facts is so so much broader than that. I don’t see any way it could be done.

But on the other hand I am only a casual observer of this technology and perhaps the experts will come up with a creative solution we can’t yet imagine.

Is it because they’re shitty overpriced pieces of junk hawked by a known con artist? Or some other reason?

99% of the danger on roads is caused by motor vehicles. Once we’ve solved that problem we can have a conversation about whether licensing improves e-bike safety. But until that day, creating barriers to car alternatives directly makes people less safe. If you prevent teenage hooligans from biking, they will drive instead and will be an actual danger to people instead of this imagined one.

What other changes has a thought process behind them? Virtually everything he’s done at twitter has seemed like something that occurred to him while shitting and then he forced his team to implement by the end of the day.

https://youtu.be/xg29TuWo0Yo