Does that mean I have to pay you royalties for thinking about it or mentioning it? I don't think so.
GPT is like a primitive intelligence that read a large part of the web and got influenced by it, nobody deserves compensation or consultation for the public data it was trained on.
If you put something on a public internet page, you should expect that other beings, artificial or not, are going to get influenced by it.
If that it to be our future, we have to figure out how to rearrange incentives so that humans continue to be motivated to create the content that feeds the machine intelligence or the whole system falls apart.
If this is "backward" and "foolish" then I'm a caveman
> If you put something on a public internet page, you should expect that other beings, artificial or not, are going to get influenced by it.
Well yes, and that's exactly why we have laws and regulation
Example: you can't just use "open source" code however you please, you have to abide by the license
Yes, if HN were to post copyrighted work that only they could spread, then you would be liable. In the same trend, any patents that HN comments share should not be redistributed/sold by you.
Chatgpt circumvents copyright law in a way that is hard to detect. How many sentences of moby dick does it take to prove chatgpt is plagiarising other peoples protected works?
It's also totally legal to print out a bunch of patents and redistribute those in a book or whatever (except on certain secret patents which aren't relevant here). You can't copyright a patent filing. The only legal restrictions are on building and selling things that infringe on patent claims.