[pklausler]

> First let’s accept the realities. The giant plagiarism machines have already stolen everything. Copyright is dead. Licenses are washed away in clean rooms. Mass surveillance and tracking are a feature, privacy is a bug. Everything is an “algorithm” optimised to exploit.

Suppose that I have discovered a novel algorithm that solves an important basic problem much more efficiently than current techniques do. How do I hide it from the web scrapers that will steal it if I put it on GitHub or elsewhere? Should I just write it up as a paper and be content with citations and minor glory? Or should I capture AI search results today for "write me code that does X", put my new code up under a restrictive license, capture search results a day later, demonstrate that an AI scraper has acquired the algorithm in violation of the license, and seek damages?

[saulpw]

Isaac Newton tried to keep his Calculus secret and almost got scooped by Leibniz. IMO trying to hoard knowledge is not a great look; we all (mostly) have a sense that knowledge belongs to humanity as a whole.

[keeda]

I think what you're looking for is patents. I've said it before, but I think patents are the only protection left for innovative software and "the little guy." It always was, really, but it's blindingly apparent today.

Unfortunately, that would be considered heresy on forums like HN, and people will continue to rail against AI and whatever it's causing and patents, instead of realizing that one is the only available leverage against the other.

[pklausler]

I have a few patents, including one for a novel machine instruction, and I recall the attorney telling me that one cannot patent mathematics, only methods and systems.

[keeda]

That's true but generally that applies to purely abstract mathematics. If the mathematics is truly abstract, no form of IP anywhere would protect it. That has always been (rightfully IMO) the realm of scientific publications.

Otherwise it's straightforward to say that the mathematics is being applied to achieve a practical goal via execution on a computer. (You'll see the term non-transitory computer-readable media" a lot in claims.) You now have a method and system. Now, caselaw frequently changes things, like the "Alice" decision in the US made it much harder to just patent things done "on a computer" but the underlying principle holds.

I'd also guess if your approach makes something faster or cheaper, it should be possible to show it is non-abstract, because resources like time and costs are not abstract quantities.

Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer! I've just worked with patents extensively.