[mrdependable]

I agree, though while everyone is having public debates, these companies are already in there greasing palms. I personally think the fact we are allowing them to extract so much value from our collective work is perverse. What I find even more sickening is how many people are cheering them on.

Let them make their AI if we have to. Let them use it to cure cancer and whatever other disease, but I don't think we should be allowing it to be used for commercial purposes.

[random3]

For better or worse, there's a system and range of possibilities and any actionable steps need ot be within the realm of this reality, regardless of how anyone feels about it.

Public information and the ability for public to analyze, understand and eventually decide what's best for them is by and large the most relevant aspect. Your decisions are drastically different if you learn soemthing can or cannot be avoided.

You can't dissallow commercial purposes. You can't even realistically enforce property rights for illegal training data, but maybe you can argue that the totality of human knowledge should go towards the benefits of the humans, regardless of who organizes it.

However there's a lot that can be done like understanding the implications of the (close to) zero-sum game that's about to happen and whether they are solvable in the current framework and without a first principles approach.

Ultimately, it's a resource ownership and resource utilization efficiency game. Everyone's resource ownership can't be drastically change but their resource efficiency utilization can as long as the implications are made clear.