>Whether AI companies should have to license that content before using it for training is a matter of some dispute.
We definitely do not have the right balance of this right now.
eg. I'm working on a set of articles that give a different path to learning some key math knowledge (just comes at it from a different point of view and is more intuitive). Historically such blog posts have helped my career.
It's not ready for release anyway but i'm hesitant to release my work in this day and age since AI can steal it and regurgitate it to the point where my articles appear unoriginal.
It's stifling. I'm of the opinion you shouldn't post art, educational material, code or anything that you wish to be credited for on the internet right now. Keep it to yourself or else AI will just regurgitate it to someone without giving you credit.
The flip side is: knowledge is not (and should not be!) copyrightable. Anyone can read your articles and use the knowledge it contains, without paying or crediting you. They may even rewrite that knowledge in their own words and publish it in a textbook.
AI should be allowed to read repair manuals and use them to fix cars. It should not be allowed to produce copies of the repair manuals.
Some people claim that the entire trillion dollar Apple empire is based on using the work of Xerox PARC. Was that a dick move? Perhaps, but at this point it hardly matters.
An AI does not know what "fix" means, let alone be able to control anything that would physically fix the car. So, for an AI to fix a car means to give instructions on how to do that, in other words, reproduce pertinent parts of the repair manual. One, Is this a fair framing? Two, is this a distinction without a difference?
> The flip side is: knowledge is not (and should not be!) copyrightable.
Irrelevant. Books and media are not pure knowledge, and those are what is being discussed here, not knowledge.
> Anyone can read your articles and use the knowledge it contains, without paying or crediting you.
Completely irrelevant. AI are categorically different than humans. This is not a valid comparison to make.
This is also a dishonest comparison, because there's a difference between you voluntarily publishing an article for free on the internet (which doesn't even mean that you're giving consent to train on your content), and you offering a paid book online that you have to purchase.
> AI should be allowed to read repair manuals and use them to fix cars.
Yes, after the AI trainers have paid for the repair manuals at the rate that the publishers demand, in exactly the same way that you have to pay for those manuals before using them.
Of course, because AI can then leverage that knowledge at a scale orders of magnitude greater than a human, the cost should be orders of magnitude higher, too.
We definitely do not have the right balance of this right now.
eg. I'm working on a set of articles that give a different path to learning some key math knowledge (just comes at it from a different point of view and is more intuitive). Historically such blog posts have helped my career.
It's not ready for release anyway but i'm hesitant to release my work in this day and age since AI can steal it and regurgitate it to the point where my articles appear unoriginal.
It's stifling. I'm of the opinion you shouldn't post art, educational material, code or anything that you wish to be credited for on the internet right now. Keep it to yourself or else AI will just regurgitate it to someone without giving you credit.