The first part is pseudo-argument. You compare apples and oranges. You treat education and massive steal of IP the same.
The second part seems to be a religious rehash of "The world keeps getting better as technology advances" this is not something guaranteed to continue and the world is not getting better from everyone. You seem to "overfit".
The third part does not guarantee a sustainable income for human creativity. Again your argument is shallow at best.
As for sustainable incomes, I'm sure you heard the arguments about buggy-whip manufacturers going out of business when we got trains and cars. It really wasn't that much of a tragedy in the big picture of things.
As for laws, we're almost in agreement. People want to argue about rights, but it seems to me the rules are a lot more about control. I could ramble on quite a bit about corruption at every level from local police to federal politicians. ... to copyright enforcement.
However, most of the rules were made before the current batch of super rich people got super rich, so there's something oversimplified in thinking it's just about protecting wealth.
My bottom line? Compute problem? Whatever. I think the rest is just more weirdness I can't make sense of.
Art major. I don't drink. I debate hard ideas.
(misquoted you originally, sorry!)
If you take a box and fill it with dog shit. You're more than welcome to chop, blend, dilute, fling or even eat this shit. But in the end, it's still Pepper's Poop.
Sell it like it isn't. Add sprinkles. It's Pepper's Poop.
When Pepper dies. Do you think the model is going to invent Gold all of a sudden?