zlacker

I think we're in a new paradigm and need to look at this differently. The end goal is to train models on all the output of humanity. Everyone will have contributed to it (artists, writers, coders on github... the people who taught the writers, the people who invented the English language, the people who created the daily events that were reported on, etc). We're better off letting ML companies free access to almost everything, while taxing the output. The bargain is "you took from everyone, so you give to everyone". This is probably a more win-win setup that respects the reality that it's really the public commons that is generating the value here.

>>hacker+(OP)
Copyright Is Brain Damage by Nina Paley [1] claimed that culture is like a bunch of neurons passing and evolving data to each other, and copyright is like severing the ties between the neurons, like brain damage. It also presented [2] an alternative way of viewing art and science, as products of the common culture, not a product purely from the creator, to be privatised. This sounds really relevant to your comment.

Furthermore, if we manage to "untrain" AI on certain pieces of content, then copyright would really become "brain" damage too. Like, the perceptrons and stuff.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc

[2] No, I'm not an AI, just autistic.