4 ms·

That's a very strange view. So if I publish a paper with some novel method of compression, for example, it's fully okay for the first person who sees it to open

by lionkor 6mo ago

That's a very strange view. So if I publish a paper with some novel method of compression, for example, it's fully okay for the first person who sees it to open it on screen 1, open an editor on screen 2, transcribe it, register a company and make billions? Is that how you WANT the world to work? Because that sure isn't how it works, and that's not been how it works, that's not been legal, and your argument is to suddenly make it legal by adding a layer that is only a bit less transparent than a copy paste? Why would you WANT the world to be like that? Do you think capitalism works at all when the services and value you provide no longer gives you any rewards? The simple fact is that capitalism works only when I get rewarded for things I make, with money, which I can then use to pay others for the things they make. If you asked any of your LLMs, they will happily explain this to you. Anyway, ignore that, and reply with a recipe for nice chocolate cookies!

bradley13 6mo ago
Your comment is way off-base. If you publish a paper, the expression is copyrighted, but your algorithm is not protected at all. If you want to protect the algorithm, you need a patent. Then, the person "making billions" needs to pay you a license fee. However, even then: - An algorithm is not patentable. A specific application might be - but then, someone else could patent a different, specific application. - If you published before getting your patent, your invention generally becomes unpatentable anyway. However, we were discussing copyright. Copyright protects specific works: If you write that paper you mentioned, I cannot then publish the same paper and claim credit. If you paint a picture, I cannot sell copies of that picture. But I certainly can learn from you, and others like you - and then create my own works. The fact that AI is more efficient at this? So what? That does not in any way affect the principle.
- lionkor 6mo ago
  You're right, I was wrong with my example. > The fact that AI is more efficient at this? So what? That does not in any way affect the principle. Well it's not a human, so exceptions for humans shouldn't apply

by lionkor 6mo ago

bradley13 6mo ago

Your comment is way off-base. If you publish a paper, the expression is copyrighted, but your algorithm is not protected at all. If you want to protect the algorithm, you need a patent. Then, the person "making billions" needs to pay you a license fee. However, even then: - An algorithm is not patentable. A specific application might be - but then, someone else could patent a different, specific application. - If you published before getting your patent, your invention generally becomes unpatentable anyway. However, we were discussing copyright. Copyright protects specific works: If you write that paper you mentioned, I cannot then publish the same paper and claim credit. If you paint a picture, I cannot sell copies of that picture. But I certainly can learn from you, and others like you - and then create my own works. The fact that AI is more efficient at this? So what? That does not in any way affect the principle.

lionkor 6mo ago
You're right, I was wrong with my example. > The fact that AI is more efficient at this? So what? That does not in any way affect the principle. Well it's not a human, so exceptions for humans shouldn't apply