The financial few have created a battle against the very world that have put them there. It might not be clear where the exit is, but it's clear the incentives are fundamentally opposite. Something, something Emperor's new clothes

Preventing or slowing the development of AI is just a startling contempt for human life. Every day millions of people die unnecessarily. Willingness to let that happen because you think your family (or, most likely, a giant corporation) deserves to be paid for a century after you die is sheer selfishness and ignorance.

If this was all done in the open as hoped, as promised and the worlds scientists were in pursuit of the same goal, I'd accept these arguments all day and keep my ignorant mouth shut. But to lie and say otherwise goes against the timeline of history we're all a part of. OpenAI lied about its openness. It then aligned militarily. It didn't offer to remove your data before this came into effect, did it? Source me if I'm wrong.

A private company securing the worlds resources physically, financially and informationally and selling it to anyone of its choosing or not -- is the true startling contempt for human life, especially those that follow along without an ounce of critical thinking.

It would obviously be better if everything were done in the open. But you can't simply say "corporations will corrupt AI with copyright regime X" and compare it to a hypothetical universe "copyright regime Y will result in corporations acting with altruism." Regardless, corporations are going to be rent-seeking parasites trying to maximize their profits at all costs.

The world you're arguing for isn't one where small-time artists are adequately compensated for their work. It's one where Disney and Elsevier collect a bunch of rents and hold back development of tools that would radically improve human well-being. Even in the best case, your copyright suggestion will privilege the giant corporations who have the capability to navigate copyright rules against a bunch of other giant corporations, at the expense of smaller researchers and hobbyists.

I'd be more than happy to sign into something saying "a small artist has a right to prevent training on their work without permission for a decade after it's released." But that is not in the cards, unfortunately.

> Even in the best case, your copyright suggestion will privilege the giant corporations who have the capability to navigate copyright rules against a bunch of other giant corporations, at the expense of smaller researchers and hobbyists.

Copyright doesn't really privilege giant corporations. In a world without it, they can just use their market power and immense resources (e.g., SaaS) to protect their interests.

Copyright is one of the few tools the little guy can use to protect their interests against giant corporations. Abolish it, and one of the first things that will happen is the RIAA will stop paying artists anything and become the biggest "pirate" in the world.

It's mind boggling how some people have that so backwards. I'm guessing it stems from only thinking about copyright in the context of "RIAA sues..." articles and complaints about Elsevier, without thinking about it from any other angles.

It's cognitive dissonance to such an arrogant and ignorant degree it's turning out to be the best sunlight we've ever needed on the situation. No one is arguing a balanced or logical alternative. Every argument ignores the entire landscape of issues and reduces it to 'what's yours is mine but what's mine is not yours'..... They're arguing to keep the toys in their playground. Even if it's not their toy. It's 'in the world' so we're free to take it.

Ok! I appreciate this insight. At this point I'll be 'scraping' everything from tech and fight this in court with their own words.

How exactly is content generation helping with preventing unnecessary death?

Well, for one, you can't read a lot of scientific journals without paying massive fees.

That arguably slows down the pace of medical advance.

One might note that those massive fees do not go to the "creatives", in this case the scientists. The scientist do the research, write the papers, peer-review the papers of others, edit the journals... and the publisher pockets the money. That's the case with most "intellectual property" -- the person who actually gets paid the lion's share is not the "creative".

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. None of the sentences are connected.

Perhaps it was written by an AI :)... One can never be certain these days.

Or just a parody of accelerationist logic. There are so many fools on the internet that you often can't tell the fake fools from the real ones unless they give themselves away.

Currently the weapons against bullshit is trying to talk to it. Engage and you'll find only 5% of the time there is depth, or earnest.

The rest is just airing itself like dirty laundry by the second response and ultimately just serves in contributing to a humans ability to quickly adapt to new environments. Which means bullshit just smells more nuanced today.

Some of us sleep and aren't to be arguing against responses left at 1AM their time :)

False equivalence much?!