Thread

1. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. 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.

                     1. 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.

                        1. 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.

                           1. pixl97 · 1789746970 · focus · HN ↗

                              >ergo no social construct predates wealth.

                              How wealthy is your dog?

                              1. 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.

                                 1. qarl · 1789749398 · focus · HN ↗

                                    I think you missed his point - that social behaviors exist outside and before human societies.

                                    1. 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.

                                       1. 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.

                                          1. zdragnar · 1789949252 · focus · HN ↗

                                             I defined it in the first sentence of the comment you replied to.

                                             1. qarl · 1789953108 · focus · HN ↗

                                                Yes, I know. But you're using it as I described.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.