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. 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.

                  1. 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.

                     1. markhahn · 1789748871 · focus · HN ↗

                        although the US Constitution does make reference to deities, the copyright section does not. its formalization is entirely pragmatic, utilitarian.

                        1. 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".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.