3 ms·

I think we would all like to think that policy is formed from a dispassionate view of the issues at hand and everyone works to produce fair out comes for everyo

I think we would all like to think that policy is formed from a dispassionate view of the issues at hand and everyone works to produce fair out comes for everyone, but what is going to happen with regard to AI, is that whichever policy produces the most economic "value", however that is defined is going to win out. For example, pretty much everyone agrees that the current copyright regime that allows large corporations to hold copyrights on vast libraries of content for near perpetuity isn't what's best for society, but it has earned a lot of companies and a few people a lot of money with which they can influence politics, and so it remains. Now, it seems that there is a lot of money to be made through training AI on these vast libraries of material, and the companies making that money can use it to influence politics to allow it. There is of course, the remote possibility that policy on this topic is going to be formed by rich and famous people persuading people of the rightness of their cause, but I don't have a lot of high hopes on that outcome -- and the even remoter chance that the much larger number of "creatives" on the lower manage to band together and lobby over it. This whole conversation is basically just a public negotiation between corporations on who gets to make the most money from "content" that they didn't create.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
I don't think your framing nor your conclusion is correct. Copyright law wasn't written to make Party A or B wealthy, it was written to protect the incentive to produce things that society values. It is very clear that a huge portion of AI's value is specifically the destruction of incentive to the original creator of the work, ergo courts will over time find that AI will have to pay for that right. Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me.
- thomastjeffery 1y ago
  Or we can recognize that virtue is not equivalent to value. Just because copyright was made with good intentions does not mean it's actually helping. It's pretty clear that copyright is used almost entirely to hoard wealth.
- empath75 1y ago
  > I don't think your framing nor your conclusion is correct. Copyright law wasn't written to make Party A or B wealthy, it was written to protect the incentive to produce things that society values. That's not really different from what I said. "What society values" is what people spend money on, and that money is used to influence policy. > Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me. The courts only interpret the law and it's pretty clear to me the law is going to change.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

I don't think your framing nor your conclusion is correct. Copyright law wasn't written to make Party A or B wealthy, it was written to protect the incentive to produce things that society values. It is very clear that a huge portion of AI's value is specifically the destruction of incentive to the original creator of the work, ergo courts will over time find that AI will have to pay for that right. Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me.

thomastjeffery 1y ago
Or we can recognize that virtue is not equivalent to value. Just because copyright was made with good intentions does not mean it's actually helping. It's pretty clear that copyright is used almost entirely to hoard wealth.
empath75 1y ago
> I don't think your framing nor your conclusion is correct. Copyright law wasn't written to make Party A or B wealthy, it was written to protect the incentive to produce things that society values. That's not really different from what I said. "What society values" is what people spend money on, and that money is used to influence policy. > Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me. The courts only interpret the law and it's pretty clear to me the law is going to change.