The reason intellectual property was invented was to encourage people to go and create new things and share them, the logic being that having a monopoly on your own work by default means you can make money from being creative and therefore people will choose to do it. The reverse is already happening, people are deciding (privately) not to publish things they have created because they rightly assume it will be stolen by an AI, monetised and used to destroy their own job. It is not merely complaining for its own sake. There is a good amount of theft and a bad amount of theft. As theft increases unchecked the amount of new output is poised to decline.

The topic's biggest cop-out. Intellectual property doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have limited-to-zero sympathy for corporate entities like Getty images that hoard IP, but our society's social contract says labor isn't free unless people donate it. We need to implement some sort of alternate compensation system before entirely disregarding IP so we don't pull the rug out from under perfectly honest independent creatives with kids and mortgages and medical bills plying their craft in an established system. Until then, taking the fruits of creative labor without permission is theft that is much more consequential and much less morally defensible than what you describe.

I'll bet if someone outside of our IP jurisdiction figured out a way to reliably and thoroughly reverse engineer the most complex commercial software from binaries so people could spit out a working, fully-customized copy of a commercial application from a prompt, and the entirety of the software development market would soon collapse, the tenor of this conversation would be very different.

Maybe the people with the very ethically defensible stance that private property is theft would be totally fine with OpenAI knocking down your home to build their new headquarters without compensating you? Imagine the progress! (hint: they probably wouldn't be ok with it)

None of this stuff exists in a vacuum. None of it.

That's all great until people stop providing intellectual property for free because of the chilling effects.

Artists are already starting to completely paywall their content.

How far do we let AI scraping and incorporation go? Just say "fuck it" until there's nothing left to scrape other than content also made by AI?

Two months? The (ai-luddite) preachers have been reciting this litany since the first decent diffusion models released over a year ago. They haven't slowed down any.

I wonder how large the Venn overlap is for people who think IP is good and people who don't think hip hop is "real music"?

I am in no way suggesting that it is wrong. I do however feel this level of "built upon the work of others" is different.

Then OpenAI should allow us to do some permissionless innovation on their work.

Strangly enough, it's only interested in promoting permissionless innovation when it stands to profit. It plunders the commons, and gives nothing unencumbered back.

Right, so what's the problem with gpt4free then?

So it's valueless when the original author wants it to have value and valuable when OpenAI wants it to have value?

I am all for training AIs, but at least exhibit some self-consistency in your arguments!

All the misguided comments of my younger years coming to haunt me? Nightmare. Luckily I deleted my live journal many moons ago.

The source information in public? Copyright isn't a thing anymore?

That's news to me.

I personally don't think IP has a place in modern society. But I was mostly replying to the authors comment.

My concerns mostly lie with the fact it's owned largely by $MSFT rather than a more "open source" contributing to society entity. But again that's a much different topic.