zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
If you run a store on Main Street,

should you get to decide if people can take pictures of your store?

>>konsch+ub
If you run a store on Main Street, should people be allowed to take pictures of your store, copy its content and put it up for sale on another store?

I see this argument made over and over again here on HN and it’s puzzling that people always stop at the first part.

Companies won’t stop at the “look at your content” phase. They will use the knowledge gathered by looking at your content to do something else. That’s the problematic part.

>>manuel+tc
I don't think that's problematic. That's how societies work. They learn.

>>konsch+od
AI is not “societies” or “people” and it most certainly doesnt “learn” as the two would. Perhaps thats what openai’s effective marketing campaign taught gullible folks but that’s not how it works at all. A”I” ingests massive amounts of people’s intellectual work, often without consent, mixes it and resells it without royalties.

>>gumbal+Be
> ingests massive amounts of people’s intellectual work, often without consent, mixes it and resells it without royalties.

but when people do that, it is allowed isnt it? So what is special about AI, other than the scale?

>>chii+Wj
This debate is becoming tiring - yes, humans are allowed to according to terms and conditions. We could use the same argument in claiming that a database is just human memory at scale, thus it should be allowed to store any data it wants and then serve it, yet we dont permit that. Similarly a laptop can sing because just like a human it emits sound, yet you have to pay for what it emits.

AI is software, it doesnt “learn” as a human does and even if it did it would still have to be bound by the same rules as any other piece of software and human.