BlueMagma

Aren't we doing that with books and magazine already ? Also many stores have TV on which they project movies that they sell dvd for

But then If we agree on IP, we should not complain that openai want free access to copyrighted materials, we should use their own logic to force them to make their model open source, and free for anyone to execute on their own hardware.

They get free access to data so we should get free access to the compilation of the data. Then they can charge us for the hardware cost of running the model, but they'll have to charge us no more than what it costs, because they will be competing with other company running the exact same model and driving the price down.

I don't know about you, but that's my endgame, I want the end of Intellectual property, which in my opinion is the dumbest idea and the biggest scam of capitalism.

To answer your first question: No I don't think the person growing turnip that I can see from the street should be compensated for the photograph I sell of that turnip. What next ? should we also compensate his parents for teaching him how to grow turnip, or his grandparent for teaching his parents ? What about the architect who designed the house next door that you can see in the background of the photograph ? Should the maker of the camera be compensated every time I take a picture ?....

Anyway back to AI:

I think though that the AI model resulting from freely accessing all images should also be fully open source and that anyone should be allowed to locally execute it on their own hardware. Let's use this to push for the end of Intellectual property.

But these are intellectual property, would you be ok having to pay to be allowed to remember what you saw in the shop ?

Currently If I go to the shop, see a tasty looking ready meal, I can look at what ingredients are in it, go home and try to cook something similar without having to pay for the recipe.

That's not exactly true. They are selling tools for people to recreate with variation.

I propose an analogy: Let's imagine a company sells brush that are used by painter to create art, now imagine the employees of this company go to the street to look how street artist create those amazing art piece on the ground for everyone to see (the artist does ask for donation in a hat next to the art pieces), now let's imagine the employees stay there to look at his techniques for hours and design a new kind of brush that will make it way easier to create the same kind of art.

Would you argue that the company should not be allowed to sell their newly designed brush without giving money to the street artist ?

Should all your teachers be paid for everything you produce throughout your life ?

Should your parents gets compensated every time you use the knowledge you acquired from them ?

In case anyone reading is interested by my opinion: I think intellectual property is the dumbest concept, and one of the biggest scams of capitalism. Nobody should own any ideas. Everybody should be legally able to use anyone else's ideas and build on them. I think we've been deprived of an infinity of great stories, images, lore, design, music, movies, shapes, clothes, games, etc... Because of this dumb rule that you can't use other people's ideas.

I've made another comment underneath my original one explaining my understanding of it.

My understanding of its system is the following:

Hosting data costs money, so in order to have a decentralised hosting system there need to be an incentive for people to contribute hardware. Developing apps/websites costs money.

In the current internet, the incentive is that you can make money by harvesting people's data (selling them to advertisers) and displaying ads to users.

What maidsafe proposes is that users use some of their hardware to host data, get paid in a dedicated currency that they then use to access website/apps which remunerate app developper. In this manner everyone has an incentive: users have an incentive to host data to not pay anything, developpers have an incentive to make apps in order to get paid, company and stakeholders have an incentive to invest into the system in order to have a presence/visibility.

I know nobody wants to pay to access the internet, but the truth is we already are paying for it, we just don't realise it. If we want an ad-free internet there needs to be some other way users are paying for content, I think contributing CPU and HDD is a nice solution because it wouldn't feel like paying.

Look into maidsafe.

I understand you want to counter this statement with physics, and we could have a rich debate about what we know of the universe and how light and it's absence exists in it. But I think you misunderstood what we are talking about.

This statement is about philosophy, light and dark are metaphorical here. We could just as well say "up cannot exists without down", or "day cannot exists without night". The next step to this philosophical thinking is to realise that since one cannot exists without the other, therefore they are the same thing.

How would you know it's light if there was no dark to contrast it ? Light only exist because dark surrounds it, and dark only exists because light surrounds it. One cannot exists without the other.

If I show you a black circle on a white paper you would point at the black and say "this is the thing that is drawn on the paper". If I were to show you a white circle on a black paper, you would point at the white instead with the same statement. If I showed you an all white paper and told you there is a white circle on it, you would tell me I'm an idiot and that there is nothing there. Contrast is why something exists.

These softwares use your pc's network connections to send data to the servers which then checks whether you paid a license or not. When they can't use your internet connection, they also add personal information to any file you generate with the softwares such that if you send the file to someone else who has a license they will unknowingly rat on you through their connection.