| > Does it weaken copyright? Like I mentioned, it seems like it's probably allowed under existing law. Yes it does. It is legally allowed, but in the past it was much more difficult to code launder, or copy things, in the way that an AI would do it. Something becoming easier to do, has an effect, even if it was legal in the past. > what is a better way of promoting progress More technologies like this, that allow better sharing of code and information. It reduces the barrier to entry to creating content, thus causing more of it to be made. > If you were to tell me that such rights should be curtailed You have it reversed. Rights do not need to be curtailed, to enable these tools. Instead I am advocated for the production of these tools to be done for the purpose of curtailing these rights. The causation is reversed. The rights should be "curtailed" through the process of tools that allow people to easily get around the law, and to make the law unenforceable. Changing laws is much harder than making the law irrelevant. We don't need to change any laws, if we just make it impossible for laws to be enforced. It is kind of like how bittorrent undermined copyright laws. No laws needed to be changed, for piracy to become rampant and unpunishable. (And don't even try to challenge me on this point, that piracy is effectively unenforceable these days. If you do, I'll just go watch the lastest episode of some marvel show, for free, right now, lul) |
Like I said, this seems like a highly tech-centric viewpoint. Keep in mind that source code is far from the only thing covered under copyright law. Personally, if I was stranded on a desert island, I'd rather have a single original novel written by a human than a hundred novels' worth of GPT-3 output.
Beyond that, your perspective is pretty interesting--I guess you support the existence of tools like this because you see it as an opportunity to erode existing copyright law. Personally, I may not support the full extent and implementation of copyright law in America, but I do support the fundamental principle that a creator should have exclusive rights to their work. So we disagree pretty strongly on that, and I doubt we'll find common ground.
I guess I would just urge you, if you value art at all, to consider how independent artists like writers and musicians would be affected by the elimination of copyright. I don't really give a shit about the IP rights of programmers (even though I'm one myself, with public FOSS contributions), but you seem willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.