- Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright
- Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet)
and a future where:
- We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant...
And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies.
(Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
Even if you believe that every one of these things is correct (which is a big _even_) -- It's a really bad idea to let private actors break the law, then decide not to punish them if it turns out to be useful enough.
It's bad for competitors who didn't break the law, bad for future companies who have to gamble on if they're getting a pass at breaking the next big thing's law, and bad for parties who suffered losses they didn't expect because they were working within the law.
If you want to throw out the copyright system I'm right there with you, but change the laws, don't just reward lawbreaking and cronyism.
> - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
For that you need actual AGI and it's nowhere in sight other than in the dreams of a few doom prophets.
Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot surpass its training data.
Technology has made enforcing copyright impossible, and any attempt to enforce it just hinders technological advancement, while still not solving the global enforceability of copyright.
Lets stop wasting our time on this concept, the laws around it and the whole debate. Copyright is dead.
> Technology has made enforcing copyright impossible
Has it? I think not. Governments could require AI training companies on Western markets to respect robots.txt (with strict fines for violators), and nations who do not respect this should be cut off of the Internet anyway.
A future, where we have limitless clean energy thanks to nuclear fusion, self driving cars that exceed humans in every safety metric, EVs with inexpensive batteries that go 500 miles on a single 5 minute charge, cheap and secure financial transactions thanks to crypto. etc.
is a future that they've been selling us for more than a decade, but somehow doesn't really want to come about.
> We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
We don’t have that and we don’t know if it will happen. Meanwhile, people put in time to create work and they are being exploited by not being paid. I think openai should pay.
If the models are so good that "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" is not a relevant question, doesn't that mean that all money that would previously go towards artists is now going towards OpenAI?
How does new art get created for the models to train on if OpenAI is the only artist getting paid?
I'm not saying I even agree with your proposed future, but if it were to happen would it not be a bad thing for everybody but OpenAI?
- Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright
- Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet)
and a future where:
- We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing)
That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant...
And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies.
(Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)