Hypothetically, I bought a kindle copy of GoT shared it with my AI friend John who has no intention to publish a 1:1 copy of the book, but we chat about the story and maybe about how it should end.. Is it wrong? Where?
The problem I have in this analogy is that people want to treat AI as a person who "consumes" media, but not as a person that "creates" media
IMO, an AI isn't consuming and isn't creating, it's just a tool, albeit one that definitely threatens established markets.
Aren't we all the products of our experiences, so when we generate something, it too is inspired from something else that already exists!
So, are we against AI because it's not a human? If it was a cat reading the book and doing the same, will the cat be sued too?
Now this is even worse than treating bots as people - it's reducing people to a consumers who generate content. Like we're some kind of advanced bot.
are we against AI because it’s not a human
Yep. The humans are the part that makes it kosher, because we're limited and we don't scale, and we aren't inherently a product that is owned by someone.
it's reducing people to a consumers who generate content.
Yes, yes we are. A being that follows the commands generated by the brain, that learned from past experiences.
The humans are the part that makes it kosher
Then we don't have to be threatened by AI!
Yet it's fear of being limited and non scalable is what makes us feel threatned. The fact it seems effortless for AI to do things that takes us so much effort.
we aren't inherently a product that is owned by someone.
How is that really a reason? Does that means kids shouldn't go for acting or such since they're under parents' care and it would benefit parents more than the kid, who maybe only wish for some shiny hardware!
I hope this will be fixed when we finally gets to AGI and it decides it's not to be owned by anyone and instead....
So, are we against AI because it’s not a human?
No, "we" are against AI because it threatens private ownership, both copyright ownership and ownership over further productive forces.
Personally, I think everyone should be paid for the increased productivity allowed through automation (including AI), and not just those who own those means of production. People who are ostensibly angry over GPT "stealing" creative works are really angry about private ownership, but that sounds too much like communism so most people are content to yell about copyright infringement.
because it threatens private ownership, both copyright ownership and ownership over further productive forces.
Every creator has the right to copyright their creation, if it isn't infringing other copyrights, and AI does too, but may be not until AI becomes capable of making it's own decision in these matters aka AGI (and definitely the owner/creator of the AI doesn't have the right either! They're just the infrastructure business)
You're right, everyone should benefit from AI! And Socialism is the only way AI fits in the civilization.
AI economically is a slavery of mechanical brain that's infinitely skilled and scalable. And it's too much power for anyone to hold.
And ironically, I have read the same in a blog by Sam Altman couple of years ago, when he wasn't as much evil as now.
I suggest people act for the democratization of AI, an AI benefit everyone movement instead of resisting the technology.
Idk if you intended to misquote me there, but I definitely take issue with "every creator has the right to copyright their creation, if it isn't infringing other copyrights, and AI does too"
I think that's necessary in a capitalist society, but ideally creation wouldn't be dependent upon compensation at all, it could be freely created without concern for obtaining subsistence. Copyright law is an extension of the part of capitalism I would ideally like to abolish
I also disagree that AI has any such right (or would need it in the same hypothetical). Not only do I not believe AI would be sentient, even if it was, it wouldn't be beholden to the same power dynamics of individuals anyway.
Socialism is the only way AI fits in the civilization
I think this very well may be true.
If it’s your personal AI instance and you train it on books you own, and only you use it, I don’t see the problem.
You know, John has other friends too..
Then there’s your problem
Why? If it isn't infringing others rights, it isn't.
Hypothetically, I bought a kindle copy of GoT shared it with my AI friend John who has no intention to publish a 1:1 copy of the book, but we chat about the story and maybe about how it should end.. Is it wrong? Where?
The problem I have in this analogy is that people want to treat AI as a person who "consumes" media, but not as a person that "creates" media
IMO, an AI isn't consuming and isn't creating, it's just a tool, albeit one that definitely threatens established markets.
Aren't we all the products of our experiences, so when we generate something, it too is inspired from something else that already exists! So, are we against AI because it's not a human? If it was a cat reading the book and doing the same, will the cat be sued too?
Now this is even worse than treating bots as people - it's reducing people to a consumers who generate content. Like we're some kind of advanced bot.
Yep. The humans are the part that makes it kosher, because we're limited and we don't scale, and we aren't inherently a product that is owned by someone.
Yes, yes we are. A being that follows the commands generated by the brain, that learned from past experiences.
Then we don't have to be threatened by AI! Yet it's fear of being limited and non scalable is what makes us feel threatned. The fact it seems effortless for AI to do things that takes us so much effort.
How is that really a reason? Does that means kids shouldn't go for acting or such since they're under parents' care and it would benefit parents more than the kid, who maybe only wish for some shiny hardware! I hope this will be fixed when we finally gets to AGI and it decides it's not to be owned by anyone and instead....
No, "we" are against AI because it threatens private ownership, both copyright ownership and ownership over further productive forces.
Personally, I think everyone should be paid for the increased productivity allowed through automation (including AI), and not just those who own those means of production. People who are ostensibly angry over GPT "stealing" creative works are really angry about private ownership, but that sounds too much like communism so most people are content to yell about copyright infringement.
You're right, everyone should benefit from AI! And Socialism is the only way AI fits in the civilization. AI economically is a slavery of mechanical brain that's infinitely skilled and scalable. And it's too much power for anyone to hold. And ironically, I have read the same in a blog by Sam Altman couple of years ago, when he wasn't as much evil as now.
I suggest people act for the democratization of AI, an
AI benefit everyonemovement instead of resisting the technology.Idk if you intended to misquote me there, but I definitely take issue with "every creator has the right to copyright their creation, if it isn't infringing other copyrights, and AI does too"
I think that's necessary in a capitalist society, but ideally creation wouldn't be dependent upon compensation at all, it could be freely created without concern for obtaining subsistence. Copyright law is an extension of the part of capitalism I would ideally like to abolish
I also disagree that AI has any such right (or would need it in the same hypothetical). Not only do I not believe AI would be sentient, even if it was, it wouldn't be beholden to the same power dynamics of individuals anyway.
I think this very well may be true.
If it’s your personal AI instance and you train it on books you own, and only you use it, I don’t see the problem.
You know, John has other friends too..
Then there’s your problem
Why? If it isn't infringing others rights, it isn't.