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.
    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.
    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."

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.