baranul

> As long as I benefit too, I'm pretty much OK with that.

There's a good argument that as long as these things are trained by swallowing up everyone's IP, the output being freely available to everyone, creates a kind of balance.

> Don't want to pay to serve it to everyone? Fine, release the weights as well.

On this argument for AI, I agree. If AI has arguably become an IP theft machine that converts its content into open-source freeware, then AI itself should become open-source freeware too. No more subscriptions, no more hiding weights, and no more hiding training data. Make AI truly beneficial for everyone, with very clear legal constraints that it and companies must follow.

It's not just about duplicating code or a public API. It's also about the look and the way things are done in a product too.

There are trademarks and patents, in addition to copyright and contract law (any license agreements for usage of the software). Violations of any of these, can be possible reasons to be pulled into court, if that's what is decided.

Fair use is also not a blanket shield or exemption from copyright or various licenses, but rather has specific requirements and limitations, that can be what's fought over. Among these areas that are covered are how transformative something is, to what extent its a copy, and how adversely has it affected the commercial value of the product it was copied from.

These are all complex issues, that often lawyers and courts have to figure out. Have no idea as to what will be decided, but do think we are at the beginning and not the end, on what will be decided about using AI for the reverse engineering of commercial products and their IP.

> Isn't the real great filter the speed of light?

Surprisingly, no, the speed of light is supposedly not that great of a filter. Various types of nuclear propulsion systems can get humans to about 10% or so of the speed of light. Combined with various advances in hibernation and increases in life span, colonizing the outer solar system and our nearest solar system becomes doable. Though it might be that our AI enabled robots end up doing the colonizing instead of us, if we or they think it worth it.

Anyway, be it human or our AI enabled robot descendants, we or they could then keep leap frogging to nearby solar systems. You have to also factor in the steady advances in technology and life spans. Unless we wipe ourselves out or decide expansionism is not worth it, after thousands to possibly millions of years, we could be all over the galaxy and even going for the next (likely Andromeda).

Though in the case of artificial life taking over, it gets quite tricky. They might decide on creating virtual worlds and universes. Instead of exploring outwards, they might decide to look inwards and break dimensional barriers, using nuclear fusion reactors and our sun as fuel to sustain their efforts. Kind of advancing towards godhood, in place, then doing whatever they feel like it after achieving that or creating new universes. At exponential levels of self-improvement and knowledge, it might take just hundreds of years to achieve.

Law applies to software too. Contract law (EULA) and copyright are applicable. Many EULAs have statements on reverse engineering. Another aspect of this is unfair competition or competing directly against the product the offending software was copied from.

Violations of the EULA or copyright can result in having to fight it out in court. It's a matter of if it will be taken to court (as little guys may not have the time or lawyers) or can be that both parties have decided on some type of agreement.

Interestingly, this was touched on in the Battlestar Galactica reboot and Caprica Sci-Fi series. Organic life always giving rise to artificial life, which attempted to destroy its creators.

It could be that nearby aliens are various forms of artificial life, who know how the human story is going to end, and couldn’t care less about the organic.

What the music and movie industry did and does, in regards to IP, is the counter-example.

> quit his job, saying that his conscience would not allow him to work on a project that could potentially annihilate the human race.

> No apologies were offered, because no one did it. Machine-planned murders come guilt-free.

> needs to strip-mine and stockpile everything that human civilisation has ever achieved.

> humanity may have to die

Hit the nail on the head. It's like knowingly walking into the gas chamber, as if oblivious or uncaring of what was planned and what's about to come next.

> Such a dishonest law

Exactly! For the sake of the children (by their logic), it follows to make play-acting of any such kind in movies and plays illegal too. Clearly such violations are happening all the time in other kinds of movies and plays.

There's a huge difference between actually doing such a thing and actually being related, versus pretending, which should be common sense.

Oh, think it will/can be worse than that. The collapse of the present system can mean all out genocidal wars, either by eugenic and deranged humans doing it to themselves or true AGI and its robots removing human interference with its goals and Earth's resources.

As for the AGI and robot part, various oligarchs are talking about manufacturing millions to even billions of robots. Combine that with billions of AI agents in massive data centers all over the world. Bringing forth a new self-sustaining artificial life form that can do what humans do (if not vastly better) and at comparable numbers or mass.

This has been debated about for quite a while, where people give donations in support or the "pay what you can" model.

Unfortunately, many have argued that it (donations or PWYC) doesn't work and people usually pay only when forced to. There is also the claimed psychological issue, where when something is made free or people can pay minimum amounts, that it is devalued or thought as near worthless. On the flip, various people and organizations have claimed that it's possible to use alternate models, depending on how it's done.