AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:50 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Don't pretend that you don't always defend copyright law yourself.
I'm not pretending. And while I am defending the idea of copyright law, I am not saying that current law is perfect. I was challenged to defend why anything like copyright law should exist in the first place.

Thesh wrote:Society believes what schools tell them, and what you wrote is what we were all told in school.
I guess I just don't know how to think. I didn't realize that the mere fact that we were taught something in school means that it is false. Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.

I have, in fact, thought about the issue. I am also a creator, and have firsthand experience with intellectual property law and concepts.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:07 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I was challenged to defend why anything like copyright law should exist in the first place.

I wasn't actually challenging you to do that, but just pointing out that your accusation of someone else's entitlement was backward.

Nobody is saying they "have a right to someone else's creative output", and framing it that way is looking at the question the wrong way around. Being, as we are by default, free to repeat things other people have said/written/etc without limitation, is not being entitled to their creative output. They're free not to create, if they want; and nobody has, or is demanding, any right to force them to create anything. Only a right to create things of their own -- things made in imitation of the first person's thing, sure, but things of their own, by themselves, without demanding anything of the first person.

You can (and do) argue that people wouldn't create things if other people were allowed to just copy them freely like that, and that we're all better off with them creating things under those restrictions than not creating things under freer conditions, but even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that nobody is asserting or demanding a right to anyone's creative output, like you said they were.
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:Society believes what schools tell them, and what you wrote is what we were all told in school.
I guess I just don't know how to think. I didn't realize that the mere fact that we were taught something in school means that it is false. Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.


You didn't even have the forethought to address any of the numerous arguments against any of your points; you just assert them as if they are based on fact. The fact that these are the common argument should tell you that it is insufficient to repeat them. Instead of asking "Hmm... Why might someone disagree with what I was taught in school? Oh! They must not have actually done any research on the subject at all. If I simply tell people the commonly accepted reasons why people who support copyright law, they will realize the error of their ways!" maybe consider that they have good reasons for rejecting the status quo, and maybe try and put some time into researching those areas of sociology and psychology.

There is no evidence to support your arguments - you simply assert that without copyright things wouldn't get done. You have nothing to back them up, and in every single debate where people have stated that there was motive, you just dismiss them outright. You never ever acknowledge any points being made, you just make broad generalizations about the human behavior that supports capitalism, dismiss the real world examples about human behavior that doesn't support capitalism, move to hypothetical examples, until you finally fall back on "but socialism doesn't work". You never question your own assumptions, you just assume they are true because I mean America is on top, America is capitalist, therefore America is on top because it is capitalist - who needs to question anything?!
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:52 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I wasn't actually challenging you to do that, but just pointing out that your accusation of someone else's entitlement was backward.
You are right. I misread. Sorry about that. I've edited relevant previous posts.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: AI discussion from The Darker Side of the News

Postby Trebla » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:47 pm UTC

Not to derail this discussion back to AI (or maybe this belongs in the thread to remind us we're living in the future... or maybe it's already there, I should check. Nope!), Google's DeepMind performed better than all other entrants at predicting protein folding.

I don't have much else to say on it... but super-neat!

Alpha Fold site

Article about it

Ok, back to Intellectual Property... I guess.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests