4 ms·
Why does the public have a right to expropriate the property if AI companies specifically, as opposed to other types of companies? Just make broad rules that ap
by rayiner 5mo ago
Why does the public have a right to expropriate the property if AI companies specifically, as opposed to other types of companies? Just make broad rules that apply to everyone based on abstract principles. I’m fine even with very liberal economic approaches. If we want to raise corporate tax rates to 30%, fine, do that. Want to get creative? Half the equity of every company goes into a public fund. But this case by case, “sure is a nice company you got there” stuff is third-world shit.
- bitwize 5mo agoThe idea is that AI companies expropriated our labor to train their sloppotrons first. But given that this is Bernie, it's probably a stalking horse for future expropriations from other industries later.
- csallen 5mo agoWhat labor did any of us have to get up and go do for the AI companies?
- jst1fthsdys 5mo agoProduced the corpus of knowledge they trained on.
- csallen 5mo agoThe fact that somebody benefited from the output of your work is not the same thing as extracting your labor. Extracting your labor means that before you even create the work, they're conscripting you to do it. For example, I created a useful organization at my school before I graduated. That was twenty years ago. It still exists, and people are still benefiting from it. But they don't somehow owe me compensation, nor would I go around saying that they're somehow exploiting me or expropriating my labor just because they're benefiting from what I've done in the past.
- jst1fthsdys 5mo agoThis chain has been using expropriate, not extract. Not sure why you mentioned that. Your story doesn't really relate. I get what you are saying, but your org wasn't copyrighted under you, nor did you expect any monetary returns on it. They stole copyrighted work without permission.
- csallen 5mo ago> This chain has been using expropriate, not extract. Not sure why you mentioned that. Sure, my bad. > They stole copyrighted work without permission. While we're nitpicking language, you can't "steal" copyrighted work. Theft/stealing are crimes that apply to situation where property is taken such that its rightful owner no longer has it. Copyright has nothing to do with theft. There is no taking of property involved. Copyright is a violation of a limited monopoly granted to a person/company to be the only one allowed to make copies. Anyway, for a more substantive point, I think it remains to be seen that training an intelligence on information is the same thing as violating a copyright. For example, nobody would claim it's a copyright violation for a budding author to train his skills by reading tons of books. But even setting the law aside, just morally, it doesn't seem like it should be any sort of violation. Of course, many people don't like that AI companies are getting rich, but that should be irrelevant. The fact is that nobody is harmed or deprived. Nobody's work is even redistributed. And prevention is easy -- if you don't want people/companies/AIs/etc learning from the material you put out, then keep it secret. What seems morally bankrupt to me is this idea that anyone should be entitled to control what others are allowed to learn from. If you put information or work out into the public, that should not make you some sort of God who should control whether other people can learn from it or not.
- _DeadFred_ 5mo agoIf your product has no value without access by your company/you agents of someone elses work, you are a derivative work. The value of your product has at least in part been derived from other's copyrighted work. The fact that these companies don't just remove copyrighted work from their product creation chain shows that they feel they are deriving value from the copyrighted works that they wouldn't have if they didn't use copyrighted works.
- triceratops 5mo ago> Want to get creative? Half the equity of every company goes into a public fund. Half is far too much but that is an amazing idea. Especially if it is used to reduce income taxes.
- fourseventy 5mo agoNo its full blown communist.
- triceratops 5mo agoThat's just a label. You can call anything communist. What makes this specific idea bad? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48387551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48387551
- pesus 5mo agoUsing "communist" as a pejorative isn't actually an argument for anything.
- akramachamarei 5mo agoNeither is using "Nazi" as a pejorative, but these kinds of comparisons can be valuable when they identify commonalities between modern proposal and historical approaches to governance that went horribly wrong. (Obviously)