zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
I'm surprised we never discuss a previous case of how governments handled a valuable new technology that challenged creative's ability to monetise their work:

Cassette Tapes and Private Copying Levy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

Governments didn't ban tapes but taxed them and fed the proceeds back into the royalty system. An equivalent for books might be an LLM tax funding a negative tax rate for sold books e.g. earn $5 and the gov tops it up. Can't imagine how to ensure it was fair though.

Alternatively, might be an interesting math problem to calculate royalties for the training data used in each user request!

>>Fluore+bN
Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code" and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a serious use case of LLMs.

>>bonobo+VP
This strikes me as a weak example, I think it's clear that it's way too cumbersome to read an entire novel by asking an LLM to dictate it.

IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go out of business.

This strikes me as a good fit for the tax-on-cassette metaphor.

>>cmiles+U01
It's not a copyright violation to summarize (in different words).

>>bonobo+821
The impact of machinary forces re-evaluation of any concepts defined in terms of human capability because scale/automation changes their nature.

Just as duplicating a fragment can be legal, duplicating any fragment on demand is not. Rephrasing a passage might be legal, but rephrasing any passage on demand might not.

>>Fluore+041
That's reasonable. This would require broader and deeper thought and discussion apart from the strict legal debate. As in, what is the public interest here? What kinds of rules would bring social good? Etc. What should the law facilitate and what should it limit to achieve that? The problem is, that we really don't know how things will play out, we have no long-term experience with these things yet. So it's all very speculative.