5 ms·
Leaving aside the hypothetical "live learning AGI" of the future (given that money is made or lost now), would a human regurgitating content that is not theirs
by openrisk 2y ago
Leaving aside the hypothetical "live learning AGI" of the future (given that money is made or lost now), would a human regurgitating content that is not theirs - but presented as if it is - be acceptable to you?
- CuriouslyC 2y agoI don't know about you but my friends don't tell me that Joe Schmoe of Reuters published a report that said XYZ copyright XXXX. They say "XYZ happened."
- openrisk 2y agoIn have a friend that recites all day amazingly long pieces of literature by heart. He says he just wrote them. He also produces a vast number of paintings in all styles, claiming he is a really talented painter.
- noitpmeder 2y agoSo when everyone in the world starts going to your friend instead of paying Reuters, what happens then?
- CuriouslyC 2y agoReuters finds a new business model? What did horse and buggy drivers do, pivot to romance themed city tours? I'm sure media companies will figure something out.
- openrisk 2y agoSo who and why will produce the news for your friend to steal? The horse and buggy metaphor is getting tiresome when its used as some sort signalling of "progress oriented minds" and creative destruction enthusiasts versus the luddites.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoSomeone who realizes that the raw information has no value in the age we're entering. Influencers have shown the way, brand and community engagement are the new differentiators.
- openrisk 2y agoThis makes no sense. How can you source objective facts about the world by further devaluing and undermining those who's job it is to do it? Influencers are parasites that have been made possible by broken, user-hostile platforms. You are advocating for a deranged, dangerous world, where demagogues rule over large masses of idiots that can't tell the difference between AI junk and reality.
- account42 2y agoFacts are not copyrightable in the first place.