[machina_ex_deus]

Intelligence is not knowledge, and this article heavily conflates those two. Does a person "use" his teachers "intelligence" when learning, or is he using his own intelligence, and the teacher's guidance and knowledge?

We freely allow other humans to learn from us and see it as a positive thing. It's completely hypocritical to think that AI shouldn't be allowed to do it. That's just setting up impossible conditions because of prejudice against AI.

I hope that the AI revolution will just make us finally reflect and also stop preventing human access to information and knowledge. Good luck competing with huge AI which was trained on so many things if most humans can't barely access scientific journals and other knowledge by other humans.

Information should be free of restrictions, and so should knowledge. Nobody is actually revealing anything significant in patent claims anymore, it's all obfuscation which undermines the point of the system. Scientific journals are such a joke, they put up prices for articles that they know nobody will pay.

I hope AI produces a ton of intellectual property theft. I hope it will crush down the concept of intellectual property to extinction. I didn't support this nonsense when it came to human, so I'm not going to support it when it comes to AI.

[masswerk]

I think, the differentiation between knowledge and intelligence is somehow besides the point, since it is about synthetic propositions, about the very synthesis that forms the relation between tokens. AI training is basically harvesting this kind of synthesis, at all levels, from basic compositions to entire, typical textures. And I doubt that such a complex, heavily regulated concept, like IP for applicative synthetic propositions (and products), will vanish in an instant. (It's about as likely as private wealth being reset to zero.)