[bgwalter]

Companies valued at $300 billion or more are not another individual and people are not "sharing" their works. The companies are stealing them.

For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism. But you know that already and are justifying the industry that pays your bills.

[tgma]

> valued at $300 billion

Irrelevant really. Invoking this in the argument shows the basis is jealousy. They are clearly valued as such not because they collected all the data and stored in some database. Your local library is not worth 300 billion.

> For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism

Absolutely and demonstrably false. Music and art predate Copyright by hundreds if not thousands of years.

> But you know that already and are justifying the industry that pays your bills.

Huh, ad hominem much? I find it rich that the whole premise of your argument was some "art, music, software, journalist" was entitled to some payment, but suddenly it is a problem when "my industry" (somehow you assume I work in AI) is getting paid?

[bgwalter]

Copyright was only necessary with mass reproduction. The Gutenberg Bible does not yet qualify. The Berne Convention started in 1886, where the problem became more pressing.

And as I said, art was always paid for. In the case of monarchies, at least their advisers usually had good taste, unlike rich people today.

[tgma]

If you are talking about patronage and other forms of artist compensation, nothing about the economics of that is less robust today than ages ago. NFT craze of yesteryear is proof. So is OnlyFans success. Taylor Swift collects a billion bucks touring the country. AI will not change that; not negatively. If anything it will enrich the customer base and funnel more funds to them. The thing that AI does change is internet-wide impression-based and per-copy monetization.

[jamespo]

Copyright is not the same as paying for it

[artninja1988]

Copying something isn't stealing, though.

[delichon]

  Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer trespasses into the copyright owner’s domain, but he does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Although it is no less unlawful or wrongful for that reason, it is not a theft.

Justice Blackmun, Dowling v. United States, 1985

[birktj]

Absolutely, I am sceptical of AI omin many ways, but primarily it is about the AI companies and my lack of trust in them. I find it unfortunate that all of the clearly brilliant engineers working at these companies are to preoccupied with always chasing newer and better model trying to reach the dream of AGI do not stop and ask themselves: who are they working for? What happens if they eventually manage to create a model that can replace most or even all of human computer work?

Why whould anyone think that these companies will contribute to the good of humanity when they are even bigger and more powerful, when they seem to care so little now?

[twhyn2]

"I find it unfortunate that all of the clearly brilliant engineers working at these companies are to preoccupied with always chasing newer and better model trying to reach the dream of AGI do not stop and ask themselves: who are they working for?"

Have you seen the people who do OpenAI demos? It becomes pretty apparent upon inspection, what is driving said people.