Back

Also, seriously? Whenever one of y'all next tries to tell me that radical consent models of data collection and use aren't possible in "big data" and "AI," I'm gonna say "Thanks for the input Sam Altman, but I really don't know if your views on consent are the ones we'll be needing to hear today."

No: SERIOUSLY. Y'all need to have a good long think about why so many in "AI" and "Big Data" seem so determined to get others to believe that radical consent models of data collection and use are not only impossible, but wholly undesirable.

@Wolven @aral Seriously, let’s just abolish copyright laws. They are the source for the most blatant abusive lawsuits. Since the Queen Anne edict the whole field of intellectual property has just been an impediment to human progress, scientifically and culturally. Everything is a remix, AI too.

@dgavin @Wolven Getting rid of copyright would also mean getting rid of the only means we have right now to ensure that certain things that are part of the commons remain part of the commons. Without copyright, the AGPL licenses on my code would be invalid which would mean any corporation could enclose them. Similarly for any work licensed under CC ShareAlike licenses, etc.

@aral @Wolven Getting rid of copyright would mean: everything is in the public domain. If Ilya Suskever writes code for ChatGPT, he can do this because he went to schools, lives from infrastructure we all pay for, enjoys personal security we all pay for. He gets payed by his company, his company exists because the state offers the necessary economic security… no reason for a few to reap the fruits of the labor of many. All knowledge should be public because we all made it possible.

@dgavin @Wolven Getting rid of copyright wouldn’t mean that anyone is forced to release anything publicly. OpenAI and other corporations can and will keep all their code private and safe and you would have to physically break into their data centres to steal it (still a crime). Whereas anything anyone does share openly will be open to exploitation by the very same corporations without any legal recourse on your part to prevent it.

@dgavin @Wolven So, no, it wouldn’t be a level playing field. It’s not a level playing field today not because of copyright but because of the ridiculous power differential between individual human beings and trillion-dollar corporations. If we want to level the playing field, we can legislate to lessen or remove that power differential. (I won’t hold my breath.)

@aral @Wolven Exactly what I propose. All scientific knowledge must be public by law. Any great work of art must be in a publicly accessible museum.

@dgavin @Wolven So you’re not just proposing that we abolish copyright but we enact legislation that forces all information to be public under penalty of law? So all health information, bank accounts, all corporate documents, every police record and military document… Well, that would definitely be interesting. Although I do wonder who would enforce that for the police and the military…

@dgavin @Wolven … and what other countries would do with that information if not enacted globally and if enacted globally, who would enforce it and who would enforce it on those enforcing it.

It feels to me like a more realistic solution would be to enforce radical transparency regulation on corporations and governments – alongside regulation to reduce their size and power – and protect the private rights of individuals.

@aral @Wolven It probably would be enough to prevent copyright lawsuits. I have no issue with artists, coders,… earning good money for their work. But the content mafia and patent trolls are the illustration of everything that’s wrong with todays copyright: rich people getting richer without doing anything productive or interesting for humanity.