Like artists, sculptors, writers, photographers, narrators, musicians, composers, and so forth? The very same industries AI requires to exist for training?
They will disappear. And we will be poorer for that.
And even if the assumption proves to be true, the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art.
And no, Patreon and its ilk is not a sufficient replacement, not for full time jobs. It mostly doesn't even replace a job for the (comparatively few) people on it today.
EDIT: I for one will miss movies like "Everything Everwhere All At Once", which could not have been made as an "impulse" project.
It's a fact as old as humanity itself. People will create because that's what people do. What isn't guaranteed is the existence of the billion dollar copyright industry.
> an artist could sell their painting.
Still perfectly possible to sell the physical canvas you applied paint to.
> the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art
So what? That's a good thing. The market is filled with cheap art that's made just to sell copies, stuff that wouldn't even exist at all if not for the profit. I don't consider that a big loss at all.
And yet you're cheering on AI that will dramatically increase the amount of cheap art that's made just to sell copies.
The results of their work is not IP though, which makes the comparison too weak to serve as proof that artistic works that create only IP will continue unabated.
There’s probably one in your city.
However, the shared delusion makes the world go round as-is.
OK, "copyright bad", "intellectual property rights bad", so what's the alternative?
I already do. Dollars? It's just paper, not even backed by anything. People believe in it so it has value for the time being. It will literally go to zero if people stop believing in it though.
It was hard for me to accept these truths. I don't post them here lightly.
> However, the shared delusion makes the world go round as-is.
People who choose to believe in delusions don't get to complain when reality inevitably comes creeping in.
> OK, "copyright bad", "intellectual property rights bad", so what's the alternative?
Post scarcity. Automate everything and provide abundance, eliminating the need for an economy to begin with.
The same governments that let you 'own' physical items are the ones who say you can 'own' IP as well.
If they didn't - and didn't back it up with force - you wouldn't 'own' anything at all. Cherry picking which version of ownership is 'absurd' is an exercise in futility, since it's not up to you.
Whether or not the world conforms to their made up copyright reality isn't really up to them either. The simple fact is: information, once discovered, is infinitely copyable. No amount of lobbying is ever gonna change that. People are still gonna train AI models with "their" data and there's nothing they can do about it short of destroying free computing as we know it by making it so we can only execute software they approve. Surely you don't want that, fellow Hacker News user, given that such tyranny is the antithesis of everything the word "hacker" stands for.
You seem to be confusing possession with ownership.
Ownership is the social relationship by which you exert control independent of immediate possession, but you’ve just described how you can maintain possession.
You know what's funny? In my country, Apple's security is more effective at deterring criminals than any of this "ownership" crap. A stolen iPhone is basically a brick that's worthless to anyone else. So they'd rather target Android phones instead which they can more easily reset and pass off as some used phone they own.
But they may not publicly release it. I've already removed my works from the public web, and I've heard from several others that have done the same.
The only other alternative would be to withdraw from society entirely, which is obviously not feasible.
I released some software as GPL but truth be told I couldn't care less if someone violates it. I'm certainly not gonna waste my limited time on this earth going to court over it.
Indeed. Which I consider to be a real loss.
To offset that nitpicky line above a genuine question: if I were to produce a work and share it with you directly, in private, and perhaps for good measure clarify to you that I am only sharing it with you personally to hopefully get your feedback on whatever it is that I made, and that I do not want you to do anything else with it than the minimum that would be required to fulfil that purpose.
Wouldn't you then see any natural wrong in sharing my work with others or even the broader public, regardless?
Every single piece of idea is public domain from their inception. Actually, all ideas already exist, we humans just discover them. Ideas are information, information is bits and bits are numbers. All numbers already exist, and all "creation" is merely discovering those numbers.
Any assignment of ownership obviously happens after the fact and are completely ineffectual, especially in the 21st century, the age of information and networked computers with infinite ability to copy bits at negligible costs. The technology really exposes that sham for what it really is and it's a shame how everyone reacts by trying to destroy the perfectly good technology instead of fixing the fraud that is "intellectual property".
> Wouldn't you then see any natural wrong in sharing my work with others or even the broader public, regardless?
I'd see it as a very rude thing to do to you personally. Simply because you asked me not to do it and I generally try to be nice and respect people.
A natural universal ideological wrong though? No. Plenty of people publish the private communications they receive. It's just information. Publishing it might hurt my social standing with you buf I personally don't believe in anyone ever going to jail over it.
It would require an unthinkable near unanimous societal willingness and cooperation, such comprehensive planning to the likes of which I believe humanity is practically incapable of today with currently available tools and mindsets, an ultra-careful and yet pertinacious iterative implementation process that will probably need to take place over a multi-generational timeframe.
If, however, we would somehow pull all that off and manage to rework our world into one that is entirely formed around the philosophy you describe above, then I am fully convinced that not only humanity, but also our planet and in fact the rest of the universe too would be better off for it.
AI won't be able to automate anything if we use the legal system to forcefully reduce the size of its training set by 99.999%
thankfully Moore's law is dead
> That way there's nothing they can do about it unless they up the tyranny 1000x and destroy our freedom to execute any software we want on our own machines.
I'd probably prefer this to a world where all knowledge workers become permanently destitute
and I suspect the vast majority of the world's electorates will agree
(do people prefer being able to eat over some ability to run software on their computer? I suspect so)