Thread

Microsoft exec called AI scraping 'the largest theft of labor in human history'

955 points · 841 comments · pluc

jacquesm · 1789726316 · focus · HN ↗
It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up. Crimes this large are crimes against humanity. So many people whose life's work got appropriated without consideration, compensation or consent it is baffling.
It is said that at the heart of every great fortune there is a great crime, so it should be no surprise that the most valuable companies on the planet will most likely result from this crime. And given that justice can be bought by those with the most money you can forget about anything coming of this.
1. TeMPOraL · 1789734845 · focus · HN ↗
  > It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up.
  Except, of course, no one has actually been robbed, the culture has not been stolen - it's still there - nor are the people involved selling it back in any form. This rhetoric sounds impressive, but really looks more like "piracy is theft" line from early 2000s, similarly flawed in basic premise.
  Whether the end result threatens the form in which culture is created, at least beyond just threatening the business models of the gatekeepers, is a separate discussion, but you can't draw the heart-string-pulling "life's work got appropriated" arguments there so easily.
  And let's not forget what we got back for this: reified intelligence on a chip almost too cheap to meter, available to everyone across the world - not just rich West, inference is so dirt cheap that whole world uses it. It exploded in popularity organically, because of how many real problems of real people, including individuals and non-profits, it addresses.
  There's plenty to hate about how AI is transforming the world, but one thing it's not, is "robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up".
  1. cowanon77 · 1789739565 · focus · HN ↗
    I only see 2 consistent world views: either intellectual property is real, or it is a false concept and all information should be free.
    If IP is real, then the AI companies have performed flagrant theft.
    If IP is not real, then the algorithms and weights the AI companies have developed should also be free as they are just more information.
    The status quo of "your knowledge has no protection, but our knowledge is sacred" is the worst of all possible worlds.
    qarl · 1789739809 · focus · HN ↗
    > I only see 2 consistent world views
    Allow me to suggest a third: these two options are black and white thinking and there is no objective answer to "intellectual property is real". Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior.
    Instead we should try to find the most practical solution that has the most benefit - which will probably be more complex than yes/no.
    zdragnar · 1789741497 · focus · HN ↗
    > Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior.
    That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. Taking a utilitarian approach here is exactly what the sam altman / effective altruist crowd is doing (or claiming, at least).
    Believe it or not, but there are different philosophies. The US Constitution, for example, is written under the framework that all rights are innate, and the government merely endorses, not grants, those which are described. This framework creates a moral basis to rights, such that things like property are not merely social constructs but moral goods. To violate them is itself an immoral act.
    qarl · 1789741916 · focus · HN ↗
    > That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category.
    AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category.
    But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"?
    EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often.
    EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing.
    yndoendo · 1789744459 · focus · HN ↗
    Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
    Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements.
    Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable.
    Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.
    qarl · 1789744661 · focus · HN ↗
    > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
    Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures.
    > mathematical axioms are immutable
    I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
    zdragnar · 1789745210 · focus · HN ↗
    So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
    qarl · 1789745593 · focus · HN ↗
    Right. I think I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
    zdragnar · 1789748632 · focus · HN ↗
    Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water.
    Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
    qarl · 1789749506 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you missed my point. Let me try again:
    > ergo no social construct predates wealth.
    What about the social behavior of group child rearing?
    zdragnar · 1789759333 · focus · HN ↗
    Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
    qarl · 1789767303 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, most social contracts do stem from evolved strategies. That was my original point.
    And parenting in humans varies from culture to culture. That's what makes it a social construct.
    pixl97 · 1789746970 · focus · HN ↗
    >ergo no social construct predates wealth.
    How wealthy is your dog?
    zdragnar · 1789748465 · focus · HN ↗
    Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan.
    If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value.
    qarl · 1789749398 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you missed his point - that social behaviors exist outside and before human societies.
    zdragnar · 1789760216 · focus · HN ↗
    You've missed the point of my response- wealth, as in the accumulation of value- is not uniquely human. It is born out of the inability to see into the future, gathering resources to survive times of hardship. It is securing the most desirable mates, controlling territory, being the first to get the choicest fruits or bites of prey.
    It is this biological imperative that pushes humans to desire ever more, and only higher order thinking- social behavior, religious discipline, whatever floats your boat- that suppresses those instincts into virtue, altruism or civility.
    So, when I replied to the following:
    > Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures.
    I'm pointing out that the social constructs were shaped as a reaction to our nature, which includes a intrinsic, if subconscious, understanding of the concept of value and wealth.
    qarl · 1789767607 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds like you're redefining wealth as evolutionary advantage. That's fine - but it's not what most people mean by the word.
    zdragnar · 1789949252 · focus · HN ↗
    I defined it in the first sentence of the comment you replied to.
    qarl · 1789953108 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I know. But you're using it as I described.
    yndoendo · 1789763693 · focus · HN ↗
    "The Axioms of choice" is talking about a mutable set of sets that contain immutable axioms.
    The number 4 in a set is immutable, 4 == 4 under all stances, while it can be taken out or added to the selected set. Objective reasoning.
    Example: The OS function that applies IP port assignments. Application may utilize one or more port numbers. When the application is done, they are moved back into the unused set.
    Social axioms are mutable because subjective reasoning is being applied.
    Example:
    Ask a person if they support domestic abuse. They most likely will so no. Ask them if they ever funded a performer that committed acts of domestic abuse after the facts were revealed. There is a high chance they did and write it off by saying, "don't look at their character, look at how well they perform. That was a good show, movie, book, ..."
    Ever hear someone use the phrase, "that is different" when describing two equal scenarios that apply to two different people?
    Kanye West still selling out shows highlights that people are willing to reject objective reasoning in a social environment.
    qarl · 1789767019 · focus · HN ↗
    My point was - mathematicians still argue about whether the axiom of choice is a good idea or not. They probably always will.
    So mathematical axioms are in flux.
    yndoendo · 1789794426 · focus · HN ↗
    Axioms are not in flux, set of axioms are in flux. Axioms are fixed and finite. This is how software works.
    Gödel's incompleteness theorems is built around this. By saying axioms change then one could create an universal math theorem. Since axioms are finite in definition and applied in a finite space, functions, there cannot be an universal math.
    Example: Fibonacci sequence only works with positive integers and zero. It will work with negative integers wrapped in absolute value. The axioms of Fibonacci did not change while wrapped in absolute value. Rational and irrational numbers can work with Fibonacci too by applying another function bound to absolute value.
    qarl · 1789804666 · focus · HN ↗
    > The axioms of Fibonacci...
    Hmmm. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    You have a nice day.
    RunSet · 1789748057 · focus · HN ↗
    > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy.
    <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
    yndoendo · 1789762594 · focus · HN ↗
    That is a micro level analysis versus macro. By that logic the current wealth gap should not exist between CEO and average worker in the USA.
    paimapi · 1789746493 · focus · HN ↗
    no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation
    I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works
    qarl · 1789746643 · focus · HN ↗
    No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts. But I'm sure no one here would ever dare do that, so I should take it back.
    paimapi · 1789746751 · focus · HN ↗
    that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)
    qarl · 1789747202 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.
    paimapi · 1789752998 · focus · HN ↗
    that seems very anti-social and immature, like throwing a tantrum. you get a singular downvote from me for one comment but I do like how reasonable you're being about all of it :)
    nostrademons · 1789744732 · focus · HN ↗
    Your wording is pretty revealing:
    > This framework creates a moral basis to rights
    The Constitution (and the thinkers that it was based off of) creates a moral basis to rights. At the time the Constitution was written, this was a pretty radical idea. The most prevalent moral framework at the time was the divine right of kings, the idea that the king was ordained by God to rule and anyone who questioned that right was speaking heresy.
    zdragnar · 1789745662 · focus · HN ↗
    My wording was actually wrong, as the constitution recognizes a divine source for the rights, it doesn't create the moral basis. Perhaps 'establishes as the formal basis' would have been more appropriate.
    You're right that it was a relatively radical idea at the time, but not without precedent. The Dutch, Venice and Genoa were republics, the Swiss Confederation was a union of cantons and territories, for example, not to mention the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy, John Locke, Montesquieu, and the assorted Greek and early Roman city states.
    markhahn · 1789748871 · focus · HN ↗
    although the US Constitution does make reference to deities, the copyright section does not. its formalization is entirely pragmatic, utilitarian.
    zdragnar · 1789752695 · focus · HN ↗
    All of the powers granted to the government are through the constitution, and copyright is a form of property right... hence the phrase "intellectual property".
    embedding-shape · 1789754877 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    nz · 1789744838 · focus · HN ↗
    Funny how, when Aaron Swartz did the exact same thing (in a much narrower and more focused way), he was driven to suicide by the US government, but when Sam and Dario do it, people argue about whether (or not) "IP is real".
    Note that society is more about justice than it is about philosophy or logic. Whether you believe that IP makes logical sense or not, is not terribly relevant through the lens of justice. To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not (despite having purer intentions than either -- despite being a genuine utilitarian, instead of an aspiring oligarch _pretending_ to be one), would be the height of injustice.
    It would be a grotesque and cruel insult to all the people who remember Swartz, and share his values and optimism about the internet and computers.
    zdragnar · 1789746134 · focus · HN ↗
    The funny thing about having a divine source for rights is also recognizing that humans are fallible and thus inevitably going to be unable to live up to that standard. This argument is the basis for people who want government to have limited powers- the less power it has, the less it can abuse it.
    There's a flip side to this as well- President Lincoln famously suspended habeus corpus unilaterally in violation of the Constitution, outright ignoring a Supreme Court ruling in the process. It became moot when Congress retroactively approved the suspension and allowed it to continue for the remainder of the civil war. Lincoln remains celebrated, despite what could rightfully be argued as blatantly unconstitutional power grabs.
    pixl97 · 1789746909 · focus · HN ↗
    reality > rights
    The use of the term divine at the time was more of an aftereffect of most people having some kind of belief in god and using that as a casus belli to redistribute power. The actual causal reasons seem more technological and more of England spreading themselves too thin. Lincoln went on to further prove there is no divine power enforcing these rights, it's the distribution of power and information that defines the rights you have. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper, not an agent.
    We see this happening again in our modern world. Technology has allowed us to concentrate information like never before. If you believe knowledge (hence processing of information) is power then we've created new power structures that must change society.
    Now, we can say things like "well, you can't concentrate information" but the other party can simply disagree and say it's my divine right to. You're at an impasse unless you plan on taking up a path to violence (any and every legal action is implied violence).
    zdragnar · 1789750160 · focus · HN ↗
    > Lincoln went on to further prove there is no divine power enforcing these rights,
    This is a straw man that nobody is arguing.
    > Now, we can say things like "well, you can't concentrate information"
    Again, nobody is arguing that "concentrating information" is bad. They're arguing that the expression of ideas in a specific format is a type of property, and that what AI companies are doing is immoral theft. Further, states and the federal government have the means and impetus to prosecute theft according to the powers given them by the Constitution. The only thing that is stopping them from doing so is that the claim that theft has occurred is contested, and the method in question has not been successfully tried in court in the broad.
    joquarky · 1789760135 · focus · HN ↗
    If people don't want their data stolen, then they should make backups. It's pretty trivial these days to set up.
    pixl97 · 1789746152 · focus · HN ↗
    What happened to Swartz was injustice.
    Why would I want it to happen to more people? This is, at least to me, an insane point of view.
    "Oh my god, the police just shot a black man for no reason. To make this fair they should also shoot more white people for no reason". Do you see how absolutely unhinged that sounds?
    jraph · 1789747230 · focus · HN ↗
    The parent comment highlights the double standards, they are not campaigning for pushing people to suicide.
    pixl97 · 1789750791 · focus · HN ↗
    I disagree.
    >To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not ... would be the height of injustice.
    Simply put, he's demanding two injustices. Let's break this down with a imaginary law.
    "If you do not wear your hat you will be beheaded. This includes the poorest man and the king himself".
    In OPs definition, this kind of equality is justice. But I do not consider this justice at all, simply equality.
    "If you do not wear your hat you will be fined $1. This includes the poorest man and the king himself".
    This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.
    bch · 1789752344 · focus · HN ↗
    > This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.
    True, but to put a still finer point on it, still fantastically more harmful to that poorest man than the king.
    jacquesm · 1789753793 · focus · HN ↗
    The real injust is that the poor man does not have a hat. Whereas the king most likely has a whole room dedicated to them.
    pixl97 · 1789753889 · focus · HN ↗
    Again I agree, this is why some countries have scaling fines. If a rich person gets a speeding ticket they still don't execute them.
    bch · 1789756041 · focus · HN ↗
    We're on the same page.
    matheusmoreira · 1789752416 · focus · HN ↗
    There are two injustices here. The first injustice is the sheer existence of this notion of intellectual property. The second injustice stems from the selective application of the associated laws.
    Intellectual property should not exist, but since it does, one can and should expect it to be applied consistently in all cases. Just look at what they did to Kim Dotcom, that's what should happen to Anthropic, OpenAI and Google. Anything less is an insult to previous enforcement victims.
    Inconsistency robs authorities of all credibility. Selective enforcement exposes them for the arbitrary tyrants they are and delegitimizes their decisions.
    irri11 · 1789754623 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you brain dead?
    Intellectual property should exist as if it doesn’t investment activity would not take place.
    You folks are deluded.
    pixl97 · 1789757936 · focus · HN ↗
    "For my friends, everything. For everyone else, the law."
    And
    "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
    joquarky · 1789754987 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds unhinged because it's a straw man.
    GPerson · 1789791613 · focus · HN ↗
    I usually shit post on this website because it’s full of amoral idiots who just want to make a lot of money and don’t care about others, but I want to suggest to you that arguing using extreme analogies is almost never a persuasive rhetorical device. The other person almost always just sees the way it doesn’t accurately apply to the situation.
    TeMPOraL · 1789761154 · focus · HN ↗
    I didn't want to bring up Aaron Swartz myself first, but now that you did and proved the point I did not want to post first, I nevertheless will:
    It's a cruel and sad irony that people invoke Aaron Swartz to argue opposite worldviews depending on prevailing fashion, making him into some kind of perpetuum mobile in his grave.
    I personally doubt Aaron would be against AI companies doing what they did on the grounds of intellectual property. There's plenty of things to hate about how AI is transforming the world, but this is not it.
    tzs · 1789746788 · focus · HN ↗
    You are assuming that social constructs are not real.
    qarl · 1789747430 · focus · HN ↗
    Not at all.
    LordDragonfang · 1789750787 · focus · HN ↗
    "A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.
    joquarky · 1789766860 · focus · HN ↗
    Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means.
    Inches aren't real. Laws aren't real. Language isn't even real.
    Have you ever tripped over a line of longitude?
    LordDragonfang · 1789779459 · focus · HN ↗
    > Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means.
    On the contrary; I think. Nearly every definition disagrees with the claims you're making. It's not a mere synonym of "concrete" or antonym of "abstract".
    <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real
    And regardless, the usage here was clearly in the context of GP's (false) dichotomy between "real" or "false concept", so obviously the definition you're trying to prescribe doesn't apply.
    underlipton · 1789752662 · focus · HN ↗
    Who decides what's a right? By what criteria?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.