[darkclouds]

Since the old stone age this planets population has been bumbling along at below 1 billion people until the 1800's. [1] And then by the 1970's they perfected the female contraceptive pill to bring the growth rate down from its peak of 2.1% to its current 1.2% and a projected 0.06% by 2100, which should see the peak population on the planet at 11 billion people.

But is AI a new source of wealth? That remains to be seen, it needs training on other peoples data which is invariably copyrighted, so it doesnt look like AI will be a new source of wealth imo.

[1] https://www.guibord.com/democracy/files-images/world-populat...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2016/03/ourworldindata_wo...

[jazzyjackson]

it's precisely the copyrighted aspect i'm interested in using to justify the redirection of the profits toward universal basic income - there's no way to solve the fractional royalties of how much revenue to distribute to individual contributors to the datasets; practically everyone online contributed to the datasets to some degree

Japan has issued guidance that they won't use copyright law to dampen the pace of innovation, they are giving free reign to the innovators to capture any wealth produced as a byproduct of publically available (but copyrighted) data

USA has the strongest intellectual property protections in the world, I hope we can do some good with it (as is I see copyright preventing more art from being made than it incentivizing, and I'd rather abolish it, but not before a basic income is in place so that artists don't have to feel like their creative work is their only asset they have to hold onto and protecy)

[gmerc]

Uhm. Look at content owners vs artists right now - look SAG strike and the insane employer proposal.

The idea that copyright won’t backfired badly and freeze future generations into paying rent is ludicrous.

[jazzyjackson]

Hey just noticed this reply, can you tell me more about the future you see? And any way to avoid it? I agree that things are tending towards no one owning anything, having to pay a subscription to access our own cultural heritage. Should we fight the trend by mere pirating? If we abolish intellectual property altogether, are we just returning to pre-industrial arts, such that only the rich see any enjoyment of art that is made just for them? (actually I don't know how art worked in the past, any pointers would be much appreciated)