[LawTalkingGuy]

Ideas are copied by reading or hearing them. You can't own your ideas now, unless by own you mean horde. The perpetual creators rights you want extended are already artificial and require a non-trivial amount of our GDP to enforce and they still stifle future creation in a lot of areas.

Most people are paid for doing things every day, they don't get to create one thing and never work again. Expanding creators compensation laws is regressive and only helps a few elites survive job uncertainly, not the bulk of the people. We're better off limiting this sort of thing specifically to help everyone advance, share the knowledge.

[RandomLensman]

I think that is somewhat off topic. I don't see why rent seeking via IP laws should be bad while doing it via provision of AI wouldn't be.

[TeMPOraL]

LLMs aren't just a mere database containing indexed copies of other peoples' IP. AI companies are charging you for access to a sophisticated automated reasoning system, that necessarily had to memorize half of the Internet in the process of becoming capable of (some approximation of) reasoning.

(BTW. that you can even make a system this way is a huge breakthrough that's not being talked about enough.)

But even if they were a mere database indexing copies of other peoples' IP, then - copyright issues notwithstanding - the de-bullshittifying of information retrieval process alone would be service worth paying a lot of money for.

[RandomLensman]

I think we are talking past each other. Let me try to narrow down where I think we disagree.

1) LLM providers harvest a common to create their product (don't think we disagree here much).

2) What happens next is where we diverge, I suspect: I think they will use their products to extract rents from that common while you think they will provide a fairly priced service.

Ultimately time will tell how the business model shakes out. Both could even be happening in sequence.

[TeMPOraL]

> 2) What happens next is where we diverge, I suspect: I think they will use their products to extract rents from that common while you think they will provide a fairly priced service.

Phrased like this, I can't really disagree with you. I don't expect a business to play fair in general, when it has a profitable option to do otherwise.

I guess my objection is more that right now, I don't see LLMs creating any kind of disincentive to publish quality content. In my eyes, LLMs are not a substitute for quality content in the first place - I see them more like using quality content to create a tool that competes with ad-hoc and shitty content.

That's not to say LLMs won't be able to eventually provide high-quality information on their own - but at that point, we'll have more important problems to deal with, such as chunk of humanity being rendered obsolete.

[__loam]

LLMs are not reasoning systems. That's one of the major problems with them.

[__loam]

Your entitlement to the labor of others is gross.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You're writing in English, which I doubt you came up with on your own, and I don't see you crediting the original speakers who developed your style or popularized the idioms you so casually use.

How do you claim the right to learn from the works of others and then demand government regulation and forceful intervention to keep from having to share whatever paltry innovations you may develop?

[__loam]

Pretty dim view on humanity you have there.