3 ms·

What we're witnessing here are the last gasps of the old world order. Powerful people are going to be tripping over each other in the next few years, lawyering

by p-e-w 4y ago

What we're witnessing here are the last gasps of the old world order. Powerful people are going to be tripping over each other in the next few years, lawyering and philosophizing around, trying to define "intelligence", "consciousness", "authorship" etc. to serve their interests, but it will all be for nothing. Very soon you'll be able to tell an AI to "write a vampire romance novel", "design an Earth observation satellite", or "compose a symphony in the style of Beethoven", and the result will be plainly superior to what any human engaging in the same pursuit could produce. At that point, the whole "sentience" debate will fall apart, along with much of society as even the smartest humans are made essentially obsolete.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> soon you'll be able to tell an AI to "write a vampire romance novel", "design an Earth observation satellite", or "compose a symphony in the style of Beethoven", and the result will be plainly superior to what any human engaging in the same pursuit could produce This overdramatises a simple, obvious amendment to copyright via case law. No debates around sentience. If a human didn’t create it, it isn’t IP.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  IP isn't going to be important in the age of infinite content
- p-e-w 4y ago
  You're thinking way too small. Nobody is going to care about copyright 15 years from now. "MovieGPT, make me an epic fantasy film trilogy that's better than Lord of the Rings, with myself as the hero." How could intellectual property possibly matter in a world like that? Nobody is going to still read books or watch films made by humans, because AI-generated stuff will be much better, much more plentiful, and even cater to individual desires.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > nobody is going to care about copyright 15 years from now This is a perennial prediction. Absent substantiation, it’s hard to take it seriously. > "MovieGPT, make me an epic fantasy film trilogy that's better than Lord of the Rings, with myself as the hero." This output isn’t protected. The Lord of the Rings is. We shift to your AI paying when it references the content and move on. Nobody likes licensing fees. Magicking them away isn’t a solution.
    - p-e-w 4y ago
      > I think this end of intellectual property was predicted when the Constitution was signed. True. And in 1890 it was predicted that cities would be drowning in horse droppings by 1960. But just because they were wrong then doesn't mean similar predictions today are also wrong. > We shift to your AI paying when it references the content and move on. Nope. Because the AI isn't "referencing" LotR, anymore than a human author is when writing a generic fantasy novel about elves and dwarfs. Ideas aren't protected by copyright. Content, characters etc. are. But AI-generated works aren't going to "copy" LotR story or characters. They're going to do what humans have been doing since forever: Draw inspiration from the entire body of human (and AI) creative works in existence. Copyright doesn't prevent that.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > going to do what humans have been doing since forever: Draw inspiration from the entire body of human (and AI) creative works in existence. Copyright doesn't prevent that It’s not a human and copyright can. Again, simple shift. Could probably slip it into a budget bill.
        p-e-w 4y ago
        Like I said, the last gasps. Maybe some legislature is indeed going to try that. It won't matter once AI turns the fabric of society inside out. Laws as we know them will stop meaning anything in practice. Everyone (including legislatures) will be forced to turn most decision making over to AIs, because AIs will be much better at it than humans and not using them means being conquered by those who do.

by p-e-w 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> soon you'll be able to tell an AI to "write a vampire romance novel", "design an Earth observation satellite", or "compose a symphony in the style of Beethoven", and the result will be plainly superior to what any human engaging in the same pursuit could produce This overdramatises a simple, obvious amendment to copyright via case law. No debates around sentience. If a human didn’t create it, it isn’t IP.

cwkoss 4y ago
IP isn't going to be important in the age of infinite content
p-e-w 4y ago
You're thinking way too small. Nobody is going to care about copyright 15 years from now. "MovieGPT, make me an epic fantasy film trilogy that's better than Lord of the Rings, with myself as the hero." How could intellectual property possibly matter in a world like that? Nobody is going to still read books or watch films made by humans, because AI-generated stuff will be much better, much more plentiful, and even cater to individual desires.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > nobody is going to care about copyright 15 years from now This is a perennial prediction. Absent substantiation, it’s hard to take it seriously. > "MovieGPT, make me an epic fantasy film trilogy that's better than Lord of the Rings, with myself as the hero." This output isn’t protected. The Lord of the Rings is. We shift to your AI paying when it references the content and move on. Nobody likes licensing fees. Magicking them away isn’t a solution.
  - p-e-w 4y ago
    > I think this end of intellectual property was predicted when the Constitution was signed. True. And in 1890 it was predicted that cities would be drowning in horse droppings by 1960. But just because they were wrong then doesn't mean similar predictions today are also wrong. > We shift to your AI paying when it references the content and move on. Nope. Because the AI isn't "referencing" LotR, anymore than a human author is when writing a generic fantasy novel about elves and dwarfs. Ideas aren't protected by copyright. Content, characters etc. are. But AI-generated works aren't going to "copy" LotR story or characters. They're going to do what humans have been doing since forever: Draw inspiration from the entire body of human (and AI) creative works in existence. Copyright doesn't prevent that.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > going to do what humans have been doing since forever: Draw inspiration from the entire body of human (and AI) creative works in existence. Copyright doesn't prevent that It’s not a human and copyright can. Again, simple shift. Could probably slip it into a budget bill.
      - p-e-w 4y ago
        Like I said, the last gasps. Maybe some legislature is indeed going to try that. It won't matter once AI turns the fabric of society inside out. Laws as we know them will stop meaning anything in practice. Everyone (including legislatures) will be forced to turn most decision making over to AIs, because AIs will be much better at it than humans and not using them means being conquered by those who do.