zlacker

I disagree. People learning how to draw does degrade the future value of copyrighted work. Imagine the future where nobody was allowed to learn to draw, existing copyright value would skyrocket!

>>ivalm+(OP)
Arguments like this are great for getting your side to go "rah rah got 'em" and really, really bad for convincing anyone else.

Legal judgments generally focus on actual impacts rather than quirks that might exist in hypothetical universes.

>>llamai+X4
While that may be what your parent intended I'm not entirely sure and there does exist the philosophical level discussion here. Or market economics level I guess.

If your pool of people that can learn about topic X is restricted the outputs or their labor are more expensive. Now lift a continent of billions of people out of poverty, get them access to schooling, safety etc and see the market forces do the rest.

Now equate ChatGPT et al with said billion people. Just that it runs on electricity. If quality is good enough of course. Which is hard to decide right now because of hype.

>>tharku+s8
Your sentiment is exactly what I intended, albeit I was terse and a little facetious. ChatGPT is like introducing a bunch of new skilled labor, it’s just for the first time this skilled labor isn’t human. The fact that this skilled labor learned from copyrighted material is like saying human labor learned from copyrighted material.