“We promised to destroy all of your jobs using data we stole. Why aren’t you more excited about this?” ask the very smart people working on AI.
Post
Replies:
3
@maxleibman Is there no better argument against AI than "stolen data"? That's a horribly pro-copyright, anti-commons stance
@ariarhythmic @maxleibman
I think you are using the words "commons" incorrectly.
Most people agree that copyright was a good thing when it was used as intended - to stop the rich owners of printing presses from getting even richer by taking books from writers and publishing them without paying the writers.
Copyright only became a bad thing when ig got turned into the means with which the rich owners of e.g. record companies would enforce their oligopolies to make themselves richer at the cost of artists.
AI has brought us back to square one. We need copyright to defend poor artists (and anyone else whose job isn't physical labor) against the rich stealing their work and publishing it without compensation.
The problem is, they own both the laws and the lawmakers.
@leeloo @ariarhythmic @maxleibman And to add, it’s not “the commons” if you can enclose it. Just because you can take while leaving the original in place with the digital vs the tangible, makes it no less enclosure when you don’t share back what you make with what you take.
If I was to build a wall with a locked gate around a park, it would no longer be the commons.
Ditto if you take data, spend billions to make a thing with it, but don’t share back the thing you made.
(This is also, not so coincidentally, the difference between free software and open source and free as in freedom and open as in open for business/open as in a gate that can be closed and locked.)
