[back2dafucha]

The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. Technology as we are coming to understand it in its maturity (but immaturity of its practitioners) has come to serve largely only some veiled or unveiled form of thievery. Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP3. And material could be stolen through other means very easily.

Wishing away intellectual property rights after you have stolen the entire Internet for profit, is simply your "get away car".

Regardless of how this ends, the tech industry will be seen for what it is. A den of thieves and will never be forgiven.

Smart people will stop using public repositories for source code. Open source will die. Programming languages will emerge that LLMs dont know anything about and work will continue in private. Bots will be banned.

You cannot win this war.

[api]

Devils advocate: a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree.

Eventually we will have to admit that we have created so much wealth that classical work ethics are no longer humane or beneficial to society. It doesn’t mean people don’t work but it means it must at least partially be divorced from sustenance.

[Planktonne]

> a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income

Does their support manifest in any tangible way? It's a popular thing for tech people to talk about, but it doesn't seem to be matched by any effort or associated behaviours.

[api]

I don’t know. Some may have donated to things or to politicians that support such views, but most wealthy people are like most people in general. They often don’t do very much about their personal political views beyond voting and occasionally expressing them. Those who are activists with their money are in the minority.

[gedy]

> a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree.

I think that's just a convenient out for folks who are automating jobs away, and whom also have no qualms about hiring offshore vs people around them.

[graemep]

> The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. T

They very much do. Modern copyright was a direct result of printing.

> Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP

not true

You are using the word stolen to mean "breaching a state granted monopoly".

[LocalH]

IP infringement is not and never has been "theft" or "stealing".

[1gn15]

On the contrary, it is people who attempt to restrict the flow of information who cannot win this war. You have to win every single time. The pirates will only have to win once, and information shall be free.

[fedeb95]

copying paper is not as easy as copying a file. You should try, even making a simple paper notebook that doesn't fall apart isn't easy, let alone print a book.

The tech industry may very well cease to exist as we know it, but the concept of a digital copy is way more powerful. My comment didn't have anything to do with LLMs, and you mentioning that technology points out to a shallow understanding what digital means.

But the proof will lay in history. Any restriction can be easily overcome because of the nature of the digital world. Only a forceful dictatorial state can make effective restrictions (to some extent), and unless one advocates for that, thus effectively banning the technology itself if not only for some privileged users, one has to accept the nature of what humans have discovered: that counting on his finger (digital is from the latin digitus) can replace its analog counterparts in many situations. Has long has you have fingers you can count, unless someone cuts them off.