←back to thread

451 points croes | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jhaile ◴[] No.43964361[source]
One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit. This will mean that US LLM companies will either fall behind or be too expensive. Which means China and other countries will probably surge ahead in AI, at least in terms of how useful the AI is.

That is not to say that we shouldn't do the right thing regardless, but I do think there is a feeling of "who is going to rule the world in the future?" tha underlies governmental decision-making on how much to regulate AI.

replies(10): >>43964511 #>>43964513 #>>43964544 #>>43964546 #>>43964647 #>>43964799 #>>43965877 #>>43966756 #>>43969913 #>>43974233 #
asddubs ◴[] No.43964513[source]
you could apply that same logic to any IP breaches though, not just AI
replies(1): >>43965586 #
1. Ekaros ◴[] No.43965586[source]
Your employee steals your source code and sells it to multiple competitors. Why should you have any right to go after those competitors?
replies(1): >>43969019 #
2. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.43969019[source]
Because they bought code from someone not authorized to sell it?

This isn't some new phenomenon. We do indeed seize assets from buyers if the seller stole them.