2 ms·

When have libraries ever rate limited people? The only limit to how fast you can flip through books on library shelves is how fast you can physically manage it

When have libraries ever rate limited people? The only limit to how fast you can flip through books on library shelves is how fast you can physically manage it without damaging the books or trashing their organization.

bayindirh 1y ago
People are rate-limited naturally, and the systems we have built are built upon these natural limits. If your system breaks down when you remove these limits, and things get damaged, you need newer limits to protect what you have built. You can down trees 100x more efficiently, but it proved to be disastrous for the planet, so we enacted more laws and try to control forestation/deforestation by regulations. If AI can ingest things 100x faster, and it damages some things we have built, we have to regulate the process so things doesn't get damaged or the producers are compensated equally to keep livelihoods their livelihoods, instead of bashing writers and content producers like unwanted and unvalued bugs of last century. ...and if things got blurry because of new tech which was unfathomable a century ago, the solution is to add this tech to the regulation so it can be regulated to protect the producers again, not to yell "we're doing something awesome and we need no permission" and trash the place and harm the people who built this corpus. No? However, this is not that profitable, so AI people are pushing back.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  At root, there is one novel legal and one policy question that need answering: 1. Legally, what is the relationship between copying, compression, and learning? (i.e. what level of lossy compression removes copying obligations) 2. As policy, do we want to establish new rate limits for free use? (since the previous human-physical ones are no longer barriers)
  - joquarky 1y ago
    Given the basis for copyright, the deeper root is "does this promote the progress of science and useful arts?"

bayindirh 1y ago

People are rate-limited naturally, and the systems we have built are built upon these natural limits. If your system breaks down when you remove these limits, and things get damaged, you need newer limits to protect what you have built. You can down trees 100x more efficiently, but it proved to be disastrous for the planet, so we enacted more laws and try to control forestation/deforestation by regulations. If AI can ingest things 100x faster, and it damages some things we have built, we have to regulate the process so things doesn't get damaged or the producers are compensated equally to keep livelihoods their livelihoods, instead of bashing writers and content producers like unwanted and unvalued bugs of last century. ...and if things got blurry because of new tech which was unfathomable a century ago, the solution is to add this tech to the regulation so it can be regulated to protect the producers again, not to yell "we're doing something awesome and we need no permission" and trash the place and harm the people who built this corpus. No? However, this is not that profitable, so AI people are pushing back.

ethbr1 1y ago
At root, there is one novel legal and one policy question that need answering: 1. Legally, what is the relationship between copying, compression, and learning? (i.e. what level of lossy compression removes copying obligations) 2. As policy, do we want to establish new rate limits for free use? (since the previous human-physical ones are no longer barriers)
- joquarky 1y ago
  Given the basis for copyright, the deeper root is "does this promote the progress of science and useful arts?"