3 ms·
I think LLMs may really change the IP landscape. Culturally we’re taught that there is a moral component to copyright and patent law - that stealing is stealin
by JackFr 3y ago
I think LLMs may really change the IP landscape.
Culturally we’re taught that there is a moral component to copyright and patent law - that stealing is stealing. But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era. Copyright and patent laws exist for practical, pragmatic reasons - and seemingly they have served us well, but it’s not unreasonable to re-examine them from first principals.
- narenkeshav 3y agoI remember a case where the court did not allow ID to patent "First person shooters" This rings similar.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago> But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era. Is there any research into how people from earlier eras thought about it? And should all laws that seemed ludicrous to someone from an earlier era be discarded? If not, how exactly do we determine the relevance of what someone from an earlier era would think about our laws?