[beernet]

> What does it say about progress that the same laws that protect human rights also stifle innovation?

Claiming that GDPR and the EU AI Act "protect human rights" is very, very far-fetched. How does the training of, say, Claude or GPT-X models, hurt human rights?

[atraac]

We forgot already that getting paid for your work is your right and LLMs were trained on stolen property?

[vintermann]

I didn't "forget". I never agreed that I had some natural right to exclude anyone from or demand payment for using bits of information I "made".

It's not also actually "getting paid for your work" when you're talking about copyright. It's "collecting rent for your property".

Once upon a time, artists and writers got conned into thinking that was a good deal for them, forgoing payment for work in return for a dangling promise of rent extraction. The vast majority of them were wrong.

[fragmede]

It might or might not be legal, but who's getting paid when ChatGPT uses knowledge from a phpbb forum from 2008? Is that human person well taken care of in today's society? I use ChatGPT too, but if ChatGPT's coming for all jobs, don't the humans that fed the machine have a right to not be lost and forgotten?

[JumpCrisscross]

> don't the humans that fed the machine have a right to not be lost and forgotten?

Honest answer, no, not if it was publicly published and available for free, not indefinitely.

From an ethical (not legal) perspective, 18 years seems long enough for something like that to enter the public domain.

[beernet]

Exactly. Even the German "Urheberrecht" has a deadline (70 years afaik, outdated and too long obviously).