[echelon]

No way. Once we get base models going, we'll be able to create leaf training data on the cheap. Several iterations of this, plus research that yields better training with less data, plus multiple startups going after foundational models -- old copyright houses (eg. house of mouse) will fall in both value and power.

If the copyright specters hold a shroud over us, then we'll create the data from scratch one last time. It's akin to a source code rewrite. And there will be lots of people doing this.

Copyright is checkmated no matter how it plays the game.

[gumballindie]

Such fixation with ip theft. Why?

[RecycledEle]

> Such fixation with ip theft. Why?

Those who earn a living off Intellectual Property have already decided they will stop 100 poor students from reading a textbook so that they get the income from 1 rich student buying it. They do not seem to care about educating poor children nor do they seem to care about increasing GPD.

They only want money. What is the opposite of altruism?

If a new technology can change the way humanity lives forever, but it costs them money, they are against it.

This is why I support making artificial scarcity illegal.

[gumballindie]

Ok but this will make everyone poorer because no one will have a job.

[RecycledEle]

The wealth in society is the amount of stuff we have. That is related to how much stuff we produce, called the GDP for each nation.

AI makes me more efficient. I can do more in less time, and I can do it better. I am happy to do a better job for the same money.

If you are worried about losing your job, use AI to do it better. Become more productive. Get more qualifications (degrees, certifications, work experience, & references.) This is the best way to avoid falling onto a social safety net.

[GaggiX]

I think that if no one has to work, scarcity is a problem solved in this theoretical scenario.

[RecycledEle]

Be careful of the not-working scenario. If you have no economic impact other than as a useless eater, a dictator can kill you more easily. Even in a Star Trek / post-scarcity world, I want to work so I have a say in what is happening.

[echelon]

You're looking at this from a 1900's lens.

The world of the future doesn't have IP. You ask an advanced AI to create a world from scratch and it will.

Now fill in the blanks between here and now. Why would every invocation involve paying Sonny Bono's estate?

Humans are another good analogy. If these machines will begin to approximate us, maybe the rules for them should be similar.

We don't need to pay a licensing fee every time we write stories about evil characters, despite the fact many of us learned about evil from watching Disney villains on screen.

[paulryanrogers]

> The world of the future doesn't have IP.

This is a bold prediction, and far from certain

[RecycledEle]

There are many competing nations. If one can outlaw artificial scarcity, they will grow so much faster than the others that eventually they will take over.

I predict we will either have a world without Intellectual Property or we will have a global government that enforces Intellectual Property laws.

[Ialdaboth]

I'm convinced the future will have IP, that the IP houses will use AI to generate an infinite number of properties, copyright them, and use them to rob blind any creator daring enough to try something ;p

[gumballindie]

With all due respect but this sounds far fetched to put it mildly.