3 ms·

That's a fine ethical argument for progress, and copyright law is indeed about encouraging the arts and sciences alike, but OpenAI is trying to specifically mak

That's a fine ethical argument for progress, and copyright law is indeed about encouraging the arts and sciences alike, but OpenAI is trying to specifically make an argument about "Fair Use", which does consider whether the new work obviates the old one and prevents those original authors from being compensated since people will just buy the new one instead. What OpenAI is offering is a commercial product that obseletes an entire industry of creative output - why pay any author or songwriter a dime from here on out? Just pay 19.99/month to OpenAI. If that's progress in technology, great, but they're arguing that the training data and subsequent transformation is "fair use" - that the original authors get no say and no compensation. I'd be all for commercializing the collective works of humanity if we got to redistribute the profits to those producers who actually made the superintelligence possible (ie, everyone) but whats not cool is a single commercial entity taking the worlds' copyrighted work and turning a profit from it without a single dime in due compensation.

bloppe 3y ago
This notion that a "single commercial entity" stands to benefit is very wrong [1]. There will be fierce commercial competition, and many open-source non-commercial options, for everyone to benefit from this technology. I'm all for redistributing the gains from automation and economic concentration generally. I see the ideal future as one where so much of the economy is automated that everyone is free to spend their time as they choose, like doing creative or social work. But I don't mean for this to become an argument about UBI. I just don't see any difference between your arguments and the classic Luddite arguments, and nobody seriously thinks that was a good idea anymore. People can still make money weaving and knitting things by hand; it's non-commodified and therefore considered premium. I'll still write software even in a future where 90% of todays widget-churning jobs have been automated, it will just be more interesting. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322

bloppe 3y ago

This notion that a "single commercial entity" stands to benefit is very wrong [1]. There will be fierce commercial competition, and many open-source non-commercial options, for everyone to benefit from this technology. I'm all for redistributing the gains from automation and economic concentration generally. I see the ideal future as one where so much of the economy is automated that everyone is free to spend their time as they choose, like doing creative or social work. But I don't mean for this to become an argument about UBI. I just don't see any difference between your arguments and the classic Luddite arguments, and nobody seriously thinks that was a good idea anymore. People can still make money weaving and knitting things by hand; it's non-commodified and therefore considered premium. I'll still write software even in a future where 90% of todays widget-churning jobs have been automated, it will just be more interesting. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322