[spudlyo]

> Only to have a machine ingest, compress, and reiterate your work indefinitely without attribution.

Everything I write, every thought I have, and the output of my every creative endeavor is profoundly shaped by the work of others that I have ingested, compressed, and iterated on over the course of my lifetime, yet I have the audacity to call it my own. Any meager success I may have, I attribute to naught but my own ingenosity.

[anon-3988]

I think this is a paradox that AIs have introduced.

We write open source software so everyone can learn and benefit from it. But why do we not like it when they are being trained on them and allow normies to use it as well?

We want news, knowledge and information to be spread everywhere. So why don't we share all of our books, articles and blogs openly to any AI companies that want to use them? We should all want to have our work to be used by everyone more easily.

Personally, I don't have any fundamental refutation to this. There's a sense that it is wrong. I can somewhat articulate why its wrong in term of control and incentives. But those are not well formed just yet.

[R_D_Olivaw]

I sit along this fence and the only real "wrong" I can garner from it is that the economic model simply hasn't updated to reflect this shift.

I think the "wrongness" would go away, for me anyways, if we found a way that everyone was still remunerated in some way when this sharing occurred.

A lá, the vision of what crypto ought to have been: Every single thing created and shared has a .000xx cent value and as it makes it's way around being used/shared/iterated upon just sends those royalty checks to the "creator" always, forever.

[bombdailer]

Here you make alike a human to a machine, telling of our times to fail to see the difference.

[try_the_bass]

But what is the difference, in this case?