3 ms·

Why wouldn't the massive loss of jobs be an issue because of a technicality in IP law interpretation?

• gsatic 4y ago
  It's a stupid argument as dumb as worrying about China IP theft. After the ship has sailed. As to job losses, most ppl especially the prediction making buffoon class, have not worked with these systems long enough to understand a simple fact of life - the more complex system gets, the more bugs the system has. Not less. And then you need ppl to manually handle all those issues. These systems are overflowing with unhandled issues, just like prev hyped up tech like social media, crypto, the meta verse, self driving cars etc etc
  • AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Difference is I already see people in non-tech jobs using AI in their daily work. It's not just hype, it's already in use and creating value for people who live totally outside the tech hype bubble. Issues or not big changes are coming.
• noobermin 4y ago
  My point is we wouldn't have a loss of jobs because of this. If you had to generate your own data and not steal it from others, you'd have to hire people to generate it. The point is openAI, stability, and everyone else is taking advantage of basically training on "open" data on the internet they have access to. If you had to pay someone for their data to train on, the balance of power shifts to those who have skills worthwhile the AI people want to replace: writers, artists, scientists, developers, etc, and they would not charge cheapely, if at all. Another possibility is a situation similar to software companies today, they'd only give you basic data to train on, leaving the crown jewels under wraps.
• twelve40 4y ago
  it's not a technicality at all, it's large-scale theft of massive amounts of data that, depending on how it ends up, may rob its creators of any reward or even credit for creating it.