zlacker

[return to "AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content"]
1. breadw+8c[view] [source] 2023-11-05 18:03:33
>>rntn+(OP)
What would be the basis of a distinction between artificial vs. wetware intelligence? In both cases, a neural network is being trained.
◧◩
2. Manfre+df[view] [source] 2023-11-05 18:17:20
>>breadw+8c
Scale and speed of adoption influencing the impact on the value of the source material.

A person can only service a few projects a year and it takes day or weeks on ingest new knowledge. A trained network only needs to train once and faster than a person, it can then be replicated and is only limited by computing power.

That skews the market and the value of the books. I would not write a book if it was then ingested by and AI and never sold to a person.

◧◩◪
3. breadw+Ik[view] [source] 2023-11-05 18:46:03
>>Manfre+df
If that logic is allowed to take hold, consider this: Would it make sense to charge a smarter person more for reading the same book?

For example, if a college professor reads a book, and then uses the knowledge gained to teach, that reduces the value of the book (assuming the professor doesn't then use the book as the textbook for a course).

◧◩◪◨
4. Manfre+X2b[view] [source] 2023-11-08 19:12:08
>>breadw+Ik
It might make sense as a theoretical approximation of the value proposition. But you're going to piss people off if you try, so it's probably not a great sales technique.
[go to top]