[csallen]

> An AI training is not equivalent to a human learning, despite how we like to anthropomorphize the process

How is it different in a way that's relevant here?

> My point is that even if someone did want to do the work, the benefit would go to the people with the money and infrastructure to act on it.

That's not true. Millions of entrepreneurs every year create companies, and do hard work, and capture value, without having to rely on copyrights/patents.

> In your vision, IBM would just take Windows and slap their name on it. Where would that have left Microsoft?

In a different world, things would be different. So? That doesn't mean that world would be worse.

For example, imagine a world where recipes are patentable. The inventor of pizza would own Pizza, Inc., and no one else on earth would be allowed to make or sell pizza. It would be their intellectual property. And Disney would buy up tons of food patents and own an exclusive license to make french fries and cookies and milkshakes. And someone in that world would ask the same question you're asking, "Omg, without recipe patents, Gil Bates never would've been able to start Spaghetti, Inc., because The Olive Garden would've just been allowed to make spaghetti, too! What a nightmare!" But here we are, living in a universe where everyone can make spaghetti, and no one else has the right to tell other people they're not allowed to make spaghetti just because some other guy did it first. And it's just fine.

> Computers and cars don’t rely on the intellectual output of others to function.

Sure, different inventions work differently. What does that matter?

[mrdependable]

I suppose if Spaghetti Inc and Olive Garden were in the business of creating and licensing recipes, they would both be in trouble. But they are selling labor and ingredients, which is what people are paying for. Also, pizza and spaghetti have been around a long time and patents don't last forever, so I don't see how this applies.

Maybe a better example would be to explain how drug companies are able to cover the cost of research and development, or how Studio Ghibli is able to invest in animating a movie that anyone can sell. Should everyone provide the full suite of services a business needs in order to earn a profit? That seems like an inefficient way to organize the economy. The mechanical engineer also has to be a marketer or else he doesn't deserve to be paid for an invention? How does that make sense?

> Sure, different inventions work differently. What does that matter?

You cut the sentence that answers the question.

[csallen]

You're essentially just saying that you can't imagine a world in which there are business models that are different than the existing business models today. Which I don't really get, because there are plenty of businesses that don't rely on patents or copyrights to do business. Plenty of ways to make money in other ways.

- Let's take music, for example, which is a form of content. Where do artists make most of their money? From touring, from actually going out and playing, which is a form of labor.

- Let's look at code, which is another form of content. How do tech startups make most of their money? From copyrighting and licensing their code? No. From hosting and serving it, which is a form of digital labor.

- Etc.

Drug companies I'm sure would find a way. They would just have to transition from being intellectual property holders (making money on high margins) to being service and manufacturing specialists. But people would find a way to make a profit, just like they do in every other competitive industry.

The idea that you need copyrights and patents in order to spur investment, research, creativity, or capitalistic enterprise is completely false, and thoroughly disproven.