> People had been stealing ideas long before computers started doing it.

So it’s not ok to be bothered by it because it’s been happening a long time?

you're not allowed to make fire. get inspired by music and make it yourself. write anything in any known written language.

ideas are there to inspire and to freely go from one to the next and evolve.

this ownership fantasy people have of knowledge and ideas is a deteriment to human progress.

its a new thing. not an old thing. and its only there for people to take money of others.

do you realy think its a good thing? its a large part of what makes so many people poor and hungry in the world.

Operative word being "you", not "a blender that predicts what a perfectly average person would create". AI is a blight on creative works.

Do you think you might be being a touch reductive there? Perhaps ignoring factors like context, medium, the economic realities of who makes this “data” and who ends up making money off of it at their expense, the difference between mechanically harvesting data because it’s there and internalizing things through the lens of your mind and existence and making it your own… you know… pretty much everything about it except the razor thin slice of the situation you’re choosing to take into consideration? Any complex and nuanced situation can become cut-and-dried if you ignore enough.

I can't imagine how culture could exist without ideas being taken without permission.

Straw man. I can’t imagine how culture could exist without some people being thrown in prison. That doesn’t mean that criticizing a law or law enforcement practice is equivalent to arguing for abolishing prisons.

We can agree that prison and appropriation are both necessary for culture, regardless of their negative effects.

Your problem is the scale at which knowledge and ideas are being appropriated, but my point is that it was already happening a lot but it was far more implicit; now it's just explicit that it's happening because we see the process laid bare.

No, that is not “my problem” with it. It is one facet of it, there are lots of sucky ways to take ideas that have nothing to do with scale, and there are lots of ways that fundamentally mechanically harvesting “ideas” as data is different than just learning quickly, but I’m not interested in re-arguing any of this for the 500th time on HN.

It really is getting tiresome. I guess a lot of HN commenters are directly or indirectly heavily invested in the AI bubble and so cannot / will not argue in good faith because they’re barred by personal interests.

I saw a hint of it with crypto and NFT hype cycles, but this is on another level.

It's rude to subtly accuse the GP of not arguing in good faith due to personal conflict of interest without any evidence.

I was enjoying the discussion until the parent broke it of with a comment that sounds like a SJW refusing to "educate" us.

Sounds like that contemptible SJW needs to stop being so judgmental. And it’s definitely rude to imply motives that someone doesn’t directly state, isn’t it?

I consider it a honor if people are inspired by my ideas or thoughts.

This could in theory still apply to machines but I would have to think about it first. It might require a different format.

I welcome people to steal my ideas. I don't welcome the AI companies. They claim they want me to lose my job. Most people online don't want that for me.

Yeah, and the movie and music industries moved fast to have laws passed protecting their "ideas". The average person has no equivalent protection nor the means to pursue legal action. So opting out of the charade is a perfectly legitimate move.

And in clinging so hard to their 'ideas', the substance has slipped through their fingers and they've mostly reduced themselves to cloning their own movies.

I can't see how it's protecting creative risk; it protects the infrastructure for some to take risks, but that infrastructure isn't being used anywhere near its potential.

I'm no fan of the music/movie industry, but they abide by a set of common rules. If you take a piece of music and use it verbatim or close to it in your song, the original composer must be credited and the royalties shared.

It's still too much of a reach to expect regular people to want to contribute personal knowledge for free, into an opaque corpus that rewrites your words, sends them to someone else and arbitrarily decides whether you are to be credited with them.