Copyright law is broken. But I don’t think that means we have no obligations to each other as human beings when we build on each other’s work.
Absolutely! This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.
We had the same argument during the crypto craze. The financial system is broken, but 10 years later I think we all agree that crypto is pretty clearly not the answer.
That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.
This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.
What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?
That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.
I didn’t mean to compare the technology – though there are some similar scam vectors, but that’s a different conversation.
I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying – correctly – that “the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers”. But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.
I worry that there’s a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.
I’m also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with – pirates and open-sourcerers – turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.
An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.
What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?
No. The idea that someone should be allowed to control what others do with their expressions and ideas is a very new concept (~100 years) and it has not brought any benefit to society
Absolutely! This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.
That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.
What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?
I didn’t mean to compare the technology – though there are some similar scam vectors, but that’s a different conversation.
I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying – correctly – that “the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers”. But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.
I worry that there’s a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.
I’m also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with – pirates and open-sourcerers – turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.
An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.
No. The idea that someone should be allowed to control what others do with their expressions and ideas is a very new concept (~100 years) and it has not brought any benefit to society