> You don't believe that fair use is a moral issue? It's a moral issue, sure. That statement alone doesn't make it morally right/wrong and doesn't say anything

> You don't believe that fair use is a moral issue? It's a moral issue, sure. That statement alone doesn't make it morally right/wrong and doesn't say anything about the extent of fair use. Why do you use words in such a manipulative way and expect to get away with it? > Yes, that's the definition of stolen. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steal+meaning&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steal+meaning&t=ffab&ia=web 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. 2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own. Ok? Stop restricting words to definitions you like. > artificial system to restrict Should society have an artificial system to restrict passing of material property? If I find a wallet on the street, should I be free to consider it mine? Why is IP any different? > restrict the passing of knowledge Knowledge or information? I consider it only knowledge when it's in a human's head. You keep buying into the idea that statistical algorithms based on ANNs are somehow "AI" and keep using it to implicitly change meanings. You first need to defend that LLMs are somehow qualitatively different from other methods of autocomplete / that they are analogous to human minds. And then you have an issue that you might have argued yourself into giving them (human) rights. Good luck. The issue with "AI" is that if accepted as actual AI, it gives those who own/control it power similar to controlling a full human being without having to give it any rights. It gives immense power without any checks and balances. It's a discontinuity in the rights+obligations spectrum. BTW, if I have knowledge in my head, am I required to share it? Why not? What about leaked private conversations? Leaked source code? > I also develop intellectual property on my own time and give it away freely. Irrelevant, you're free to give consent. That doesn't justify your opinion that other people should also be required to give consent. > ad hominem It's a criticism of your person (your apparent beliefs) based on observed behavior. If your goals are different, correct me. You seem to think people are somehow obligated to give away their work for free under some conditions. I encourage you to stop talking about IP and start talking about human work. The current issue with IP laws is only a symptom of a much greater issue that if people are not compensated for the full transitive value of their work, that surplus (wealth created minus compensation) goes to the already rich owner class and causes greater and greater inequality. LLMs using other people's work without permission is just the latest fad in the constant attempts to the rich to extract more and more wealth and make number go up. > I hope you don't have any pets because obviously that definition is way too limited. See, this is the kind of technically correct pedantry you use to distract the conversation without addressing the actual point. It's tiresome so don't be surprised if I don't bother replying to your next message. > ownership of ideas is actually how they got that control and how they maintain it. And that's why it shouldn't be about IP but about work. People should own the product of their work according to their skill level and how much work they put in. Hierarchical corporations shouldn't exist, it should all be collectives, just like people realized dictatorships should be replaced with democracies. Hierarchical power always leads to exploitation. >> I am highly confident if it's replaced with something better, it'll just benefit those who already have an advantage. Sorry, that sentence was missing a not. We absolutely need to replace IP with a better system, otherwise the free-for-all will only benefit those who have an advantage in other areas such as network effects and marketing money. But until I see credibly proposals for a better system, I want to keep the parts of the current system which prevent corporations from just taking my work. > To what end, everyone is dead now. Power over nothing. Do you think war is about killing people? Of course not, you just need to kill enough to achieve your goals. Those can be natural resources, distracting from domestic issues, religious causes, etc. The drive of aggressors to take by force won't go away with AI. You said "And without an economy, they are at our mercy" without even an attempt to justify it, I pointed out a flaw and you made a statement which is equally wrong and I again pointed out the flaws. At no point did you attempt to make a constructive argument for your view. Your entire approach is nitpicking what I say without saying anything coherent of your own. > No... And right below that I said more seriously copyright has issues and you don't seem to want to engage with that. --- The bottom line is that I engage in conversations like this to find out other people's opinions and try to figure out a way to design the system so that people who do the work benefit from it without people who don't do useful work being able to exploit them. If I can expand other people's understanding of the issue, maybe even convince them, that's great. Your (apparent) goals of this conversation are to discredit what I say in a way which does not address the core points which makes it more likely you're not arguing to convince me but others reading this conversation. You don't appear to want to engage in constructive discussion - e.g. no reply to any of these: - "You're onto something but I can't say whether I agree or not unless you specify who belongs to each group." - "Are you arguing that one ting is right because a similar thing is wrong? Isn't it that they're both wrong?" - "More seriously, yes, copyright has issues." - "If copyright was so bad, why don't all creators release their stuff in the public domain?"