[tqwhite]

No. It's not. Also, it's not unfair if I study someone's work and then learn from it. Also, it's not unfair if you see my internet present and are inspired to do similar things.

At some point participating in the internet means your stuff is going to be seen. I wear glasses to read web content. I don't think the glasses company should pay royalties for what I read. chatGPT is a tool that allows me to understand and use the information people put onto the internet better.

Far from a matter of fairness, this is simply another way that selfish people are trying to monetize the future, to make it more and more difficult and expensive for others to participate.

"I've always wished I could charge everyone one earth. chatGTP looks like the future. If I can tap the money flow there I will get mo' money."

I'm against it.

[FoomFries]

You’re conflating human work and machine work. I think that’s the real argument here - it’s fine to study someone’s work and learn from it as a human, because that takes impossibly more time and produces impossibly less total works than chatGPT doing the same thing.

I’m not arguing for either side, just pointing out that we need to carefully consider what rights AI should share with humans.

[elforce002]

But they are going to monetize regardless of what we want. If that's the case, they need to retribute any copyrighted content,etc...

You're being selfish too. How do you think we have phones, etc... ? Capitalism applies to knowledge too.

ChatGPT took advantage of that and wants to monetize it while cutting people who spent time, money, resources, etc... Just like copilot, plain and simple.