Do you have any constructive refutations to the ideas presented in the article or just wanted to to use the term “rent seeking” as its in vogue right now ?
Every single one of these ideas I've heard on pay for data on AI could be turned around and used on corporations, and if so, individuals in the US. I've not seen one yet that would not reverse the situation and turn in to a corporation buying up as much IP as possible and turning into, yes, rent seeking.
If some company makes a zillion dollars with AI then tax the living shit out of them and distribute the gains as UBI. If the future is going to AGI the idea that humans will have enough interesting to come up with to actually support themselves seems like a very unlikely premise anyway.
The scale and cadence of it seems to be different.
Also, once again Karl ideas of “ownership of the means of copying and training” seems like it will be relevant.
I have nothing cleaver to say; I agree with you. Just wanted to add some colors.
I find it sad that IP laws can be enforced ruthlessly in a case. And fully ignored in another.
Actually, musing; I have something to say:
We could force AI manufacturers to reveal what the data underlying the training; and use IP at that stage to effect some repartitions.
Raws BOM-style list of training data should not reveal their secret sauce? ( actually question )
The English alphabet is not the Phonecian alphabet. That is an undeniable fact.
Building on something doesn't make it a copy. You blur the relations between words. It is unwise.