This is the root of the objection to AI. To say that humans are similar would imply that a person's thoughts are a function of their sensory experiences, and that is not a popular view.

Similarly, people like to think that a person's behavior is not a mere function of their experience- that they are capable of "choosing" how to react to their circumstances. They will accept no explanation that appeals to material conditions or biology. A man steals bread not because he is poor and hungry, nor because of some chemical reaction in his brain, but because he "chose" to steal. The part that chooses would his "soul", which cannot be explained in terms of cause-and-effect.

There’s a much richer discussion going on about current-generation AI and its prospects that is grounded in plainly materialist and technical insights, with thoughtful differences of opinion about what current research demonstrates and about what the sophistication of biological/neurological machines may involve in comparison.

You might find that conversation more enriching if you tune into it instead of the one you seem to be focused on.

In copyright-law (and I think patents?), there is the Threshold of originality. Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Which IMHO comes down to how much of a and b can you still see in the mix, and how much did mixing them changed them in the end product. If the change is low, then people more likely consider it as not innovative.

Or how Homer Simpson once said: “People are afraid of new things. You should have taken an existing product and put a clock in it or something.”

The threshold for originality in copyright is the bare minimum, so it's not a good standard for "invention". Patents have a much higher bar to overcome, and it is hard to put into a simple explanatory phrase.

I think what you are describing in copyright isn't the issue of originality, but determining what is encompassed in a copyrighted work. The court will analyze what the work consists of, and what of it was your expression, as opposed to someone else's. So, it's not novelty exactly but it's close.

Yes, and no. I can't speak for laws in the USA, as I'm from Europe. But Copyright-laws in the EU do have parts which specifically target mixing and mashups of content, and how much new content of your you need to add to make it count as a separate work. These parts were recently updated, because of YouTube, the meme-culture and so on. But it's my understanding that for music and text-quotes, the whole concept is already longer around. So I guess US-Laws do have something like this too?

So of course, this does not handle novelty on a global scale for all of mankind's knowledge and content, but the general Idea and how to handle it is there.

> Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright.

Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity.

>Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity.

Full stop yes. Independent creation of the same thing is not an issue in copyright law in the US. I do not speak about Euro copyright, as I'm merely a US atty. In US copyright law, a necessary element of infringement is access to the allegedly copied work - if access to the work is rebutted, then there is no copying and no infringement. The copyright stands.

the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade.

In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger.

Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.

I like this quote (paraphrase) of Byung Chul Han, "capitalism is not a political question, but a force of nature to be tamed".

My larger point being that capitalism "applied" to digital assets is NOT the way forwards. So I don't have a complete 'constructive' alternative. But I'm absolutely sure of what I don't want and believe should try to avoid i.e. the path we are on (digital rights, intellectual property, and so on).

Copyright exemptions (fair use/fair dealing etc) are a million times more complex than that. There are times when one adds almost nothing yet will still get protection. Take political humor. A standard bit is just to point out something funny. Look at how often political comics (John oliver/stewart etc) just play a clip of some politician. No edits. No commentary. The clip speaks for itself. That is still protected speech. Understanding how the comic adds to the clip cannot be expressed in numbers.

So, was that real creativity, or not? If not, why not? If the parts are really "basic", they didn't come from other, pre-existing parts.

And if it was real creativity, why is it impossible for us to do the same?

I don't believe originality is that valuable. It's a positive term to me, but just slightly.

I've seen a lot people on HN credit the SV companies' "free food" practice to google. Do they believe free food for your employees is a new idea that someone in google came up with? I don't think so.

With such definition, GPT-4 can create new ideas.

At least GPT brings funding sometimes.

I often take it a step further and use it as a reminder that new ideas are rarely born from one person but rather the contributions of many, each too small to be noticed as an “original idea”, but when viewed collectively, can be revolutionary.

So many advancements (like the airplane) often get invented simultaneously by different people in completely different areas of the globe without any connection to each other.

"A fax machine is just a telephone and a waffle iron!" —Abraham Simpson

But now that we have software that can generate massive amounts of "Mixing A and B" ideas automatically... I dunno, seems like we're heading toward a sort of "pollution of the idea atmosphere" where we get a bunch of remixing of ideas that no human has vetted as particularly useful or valuable or interesting.

We already have that. Observe: ahem “It is an industrial capacity, that many people like the Reddit poem person who does the cow thing. And everyone delighted in the nonsense of words that are sense.” Or, perhaps you want something on-topic? “Your ideas about ideas are mere ideas. Ideas that are ideas are ideas, but these ideas are not ideas. lol!” Perhaps an unoriginal, unfiltered synthesis of some good ideas? “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a potato peeler could save you 5 Altairian dollars a day.”

We don't need AI to produce unoriginal, unfiltered internet comments. Certain YouTube comments sections provide a great example (though the problem with YouTube comments isn't as bad as people tend to make out). We humans already have social mechanisms to keep the good ideas and ditch the bad ideas, even when many of the humans aren't bothering to filter their own output.