4 ms·

Is there anyway to build intelligence that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism you are using here? I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of

by BobbyJo 5mo ago

Is there anyway to build intelligence that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism you are using here? I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community...

Craighead 5mo ago
ahh yes the perfect world fallacy
comfysocks 5mo ago
To me, the problem is when IP laws are stretched and abused by big corporations (like, say Disney) or by patent trolls. If IP laws could work in a way that gave limited and reasonable protections to actual creators and innovators, then I don’t have a problem with them.
hallway_monitor 5mo ago
Yes, it is called paying for the use of copyrighted material which people put a lot of time and money into creating. Is this not obvious?
- BobbyJo 5mo ago
  That would mean that the A.I. is no longer "plagiarizing" in your view?
  - sublinear 5mo ago
    Yes. In my view as well.
salawat 5mo ago
It still is oppression. What many of us object to now is how starkly it's revealed the 2 tier illegitimate judicial system that on the one hand ruins grandmas and teenagers, but gives multinationals a free pass for charging everyone to get access to the human corpora. Anna's Archive, while equally illegal in a sense, but at least operates itself in a way compatible with uplifting everyone is getting more backlash than these tech companies that are dead set on "renting out access to intelligence". At this point, if you can't see the absurdity of the System as it functions past the "bing bing wahooness" of AI, I don't know what to tell ya.
sublinear 5mo ago
> I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community... This is not true. Otherwise, why is open source licensing so popular? Have you simply never read those licenses?
- BobbyJo 5mo ago
  They are there for attribution and, depending on the license, preventing people from making money off something that is supposed to be free. Attribution from an LLMs output is nearly as infeasible as attribution of where I learned the words I'm using to talk to you right now. I mean, AGI is incompatible with that kind of attribution, so saying we have to do it is equivalent to saying "AI not allowed". It's a valid opinion, but, IMO kind of a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing argument.

by BobbyJo 5mo ago

Is there anyway to build intelligence that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism you are using here? I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community...

Craighead 5mo ago

ahh yes the perfect world fallacy

comfysocks 5mo ago

To me, the problem is when IP laws are stretched and abused by big corporations (like, say Disney) or by patent trolls. If IP laws could work in a way that gave limited and reasonable protections to actual creators and innovators, then I don’t have a problem with them.

hallway_monitor 5mo ago

Yes, it is called paying for the use of copyrighted material which people put a lot of time and money into creating. Is this not obvious?

BobbyJo 5mo ago
That would mean that the A.I. is no longer "plagiarizing" in your view?
- sublinear 5mo ago
  Yes. In my view as well.

salawat 5mo ago

It still is oppression. What many of us object to now is how starkly it's revealed the 2 tier illegitimate judicial system that on the one hand ruins grandmas and teenagers, but gives multinationals a free pass for charging everyone to get access to the human corpora. Anna's Archive, while equally illegal in a sense, but at least operates itself in a way compatible with uplifting everyone is getting more backlash than these tech companies that are dead set on "renting out access to intelligence". At this point, if you can't see the absurdity of the System as it functions past the "bing bing wahooness" of AI, I don't know what to tell ya.

sublinear 5mo ago

> I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community... This is not true. Otherwise, why is open source licensing so popular? Have you simply never read those licenses?

BobbyJo 5mo ago
They are there for attribution and, depending on the license, preventing people from making money off something that is supposed to be free. Attribution from an LLMs output is nearly as infeasible as attribution of where I learned the words I'm using to talk to you right now. I mean, AGI is incompatible with that kind of attribution, so saying we have to do it is equivalent to saying "AI not allowed". It's a valid opinion, but, IMO kind of a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing argument.