The terminator won't, it's fictional. If AI killed everyone, it probably wouldn't happen like a hollywood movie.
Climate change is subject to way more unhinged hysteria, as well!
Won't doom the species, though.
Does your ability to write fantasy books absolutely depend on having read those fantasy books as a kid? Was gaining the ability to write your own fantasy books and profit from them your only motivation to read those fantasy books? After gaining the ability to write fantasy books thanks to having read them, can you now produce fantasy books at a qualitatively different speed, scale, and conditions than any of the authors of the books that you read?
If the answer to those three questions is "yes", then I would argue that yes, you absolutely should have to pay royalties to the authors.
> If the answer to those three questions is "yes", then I would argue that yes, you absolutely should have to pay royalties to the authors.
Copyright lobbies can't have their own cake and eat it too, if you want to enforce such a different way of thinking about copyright compared to the current one, that would destroy the current industry and rightly so.
I would appreciate if you addressed the questions as literally stated.
I could just as well argue that businesses developing or making use of LLMs can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want their computer programs to enjoy the same rights and prerogatives as human creators do, they should be ready to demonstrate that those models are truly moral agents, with their own lived experiences, and thus deserve the status of legal persons as of themselves subject to the same laws and obligations as human beings.
I don't know. Whether the answer were to be either 'our entire human culture', or 'absolutely nothing whatsoever', or any point in between, how would that be relevant for the discussion at hand?
Say I want to write a screenplay and produce the resulting film, for profit, but I am literally unable to have any ideas whatsoever unless I base them on book that I read. With this in mind, and with this sole motivation, I buy and read the whole collection of Brandon Sanderson's novels and create a screenplay based exclusively on their content, for I have no ideas nor experiences of my own. I already paid when I bought the books. Why would I need to pay Brandon Sanderson any more?
So I understand you are arguing that derived works should not be subject to royalties, i.e. I should be able to produce a film based entirely on the work of a living author without restriction or the need to pay any royalties.
No, you're over-generalizing what I'm saying (a.k.a. straw man fallacy).
If you're commercializing e.g. goodies that use the exact same character designed by some artist, so that anybody can tell you it's the same, AND if the traits of this character are actually original (not just so that anybody would come up with it independently), AND if the people buying your goodies are all thinking about the original character in the first place, AND if the original author is alive, then I'd absolutely agree that royalties need to be paid.
That's just an example. To tell you that in specific cases it's obvious that royalties are required.
But in the general case, no. Because, else, anything just is a derived work. Just think about it.
It's even impossible to retrace all of the woven threads, ramified tendrils, that link your mind to the billions of other minds all over the world and over the ages.
The world of ideas is liquid. All is mixing, all dissolves and disappears in everything else, and is reborn new and different, again and again.
The Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk in 1900. [0]
The Bernoulli Equation, which gave us the basic understanding of how lift can be generated with an airfoil, was developed in the mid-1700s. [1]
We don't have any fundamental understanding today of how an AGI could be built. We have a bunch of interesting ideas, with varying degrees of evidence for them, but we don't have the same kind of solidly-established scientific foundation for understanding intelligence and the human brain today that we did for understanding lift in 1900.
"Some people didn't understand the science, and so called it fiction" isn't a very strong argument.
But Bernoulli proved the scientific foundation of it well over a century before anyone actually did it.
No one has provided us with an ironclad scientific foundation for AGI. Some people keep declaring very firmly that it must logically be possible, but even if there are no gaps in your logic whatsoever, that's not the same thing as providing equations for how it would work.
Historically, people from different regions would be able to read each other's writing (send letters to each other) even if their spoken dialects/languages were mutually incomprehensible. You get this in European history, too, just not to the same degree.
It's the competence I'm afraid of! If they did it competently, they would make sure they had absolute surveillance of every american's internet history.
Much of the EU uses centralized auth services for critical services like banking, taxes, applying for schools, applying for loans. It's pretty great honestly. There are also APIs for integrating into these where the user chooses what pii they want to share with the service.
I know it's a controversial topic but the argument that age verification and auth services must remove privacy and inevitably leads to mass surveillance is a false narrative which I find kind of funny as if anybody should know these technical realities it's users on hn.
They don't need to come anywhere near US levels of per capita emissions to stop being poor. Here are some countries that are generally considered to be reasonably wealthy, and their per capita emissions as a percent of US per capita emissions:
They are just as much looking to leapfrog and have opportunities to do so. Without massive numbers of oil and coal lobbyists, as just one example, it is far easier for them to jump straight into massive renewable energy sources and skip a lot of Western CO2 mistakes in their "bootstrapping" processes.