> Allow me to suggest a third: these two options are black and white thinking and there is no objective answer to "intellectual property is real". Property is at best a social construct that is possibly supported by instinctual behavior.

Intellectual property is as real as private property (which is a lot more elaborate and weird than possession and territoriality, which is the most that has any natural basis). It's really foolish to claim one doesn't exist and should be abolished and the other this fundamental sacred thing that should be respected absolutely (as many do).

▲

montagg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We made it up. We made all this up. We do it for an outcome.

Intellectual property exists as a concept to foster the creation of more intellectual property. That is not the case for all private property, because I cannot copy your land or your car infinitely. That’s why IP rights expire at some point, or have fair use that doesn’t harm the IP rights holder, something other forms of property don’t have. Saying that they are equivalent is not foolish—I think that’s a bit extreme—but it doesn’t recognize that they have fundamental differences, and the laws around them have different intended outcomes.

I think AI training falls most likely in the fair use category of intellectual property: there is some societal benefit* that requires no actual harm** to the IP holder, therefore it’s a good trade-off for society if we poke a hole in the social construct of property to get that benefit.

*Let’s put aside the question of whether AI is good for society or private ownership of AI models is good for society. Important questions but separate from the theory. IF IT IS GOOD, it follows the above. If it is not good, then of course it does not.

**Also not a fully settled question. Again, an important debate to have and the tradeoffs here matter. If the harms are small enough, the societal benefit could be worth it. Both notes have to be true for this to be worthy of “fair use”.

▲

ndiddy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Intellectual property exists as a concept to foster the creation of more intellectual property.

The idea of IP as an economic tool to foster creation comes out of the UK and subsequently the US. In mainland Europe, IP comes out of the French Revolution and the idea that copyright is like a "moral right" that you intrinsically deserve for putting in the effort to create something. This viewpoint has de facto won out because as global commerce and global culture has become more and more widespread, everybody has standardized on the longest durations (the standard has long been "life + 50 years" in Europe) so one country doesn't have to worry about freeing up its works for "exploitation" by another country.

▲

palmotea an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> That is not the case for all private property, because I cannot copy your land or your car infinitely.

All property is fundamentally about exclusion and control to allow for private exploitation. That common bit of rhetoric about copying misses that point. The reason private property exists is not because land (for instance) can't be copied.

> Saying that they are equivalent is not foolish—I think that’s a bit extreme—but it doesn’t recognize that they have fundamental differences, and the laws around them have different intended outcomes.

You should note that you misread me: I didn't say they were identical in every respect, I said their "reality" is the same. They're both made up social constructs. One isn't more fundamental than the other.

▲

tenuousemphasis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is going to blow your mind, but people created music, literature, art long before intellectual property laws existed. IP laws are nothing but rent seeking.

	▲	intended 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, and we lived in a world of guilds, Orders and secrets which kept their knowledge tightly within themselves. Music and art was created by patronage. Entire periods o where the art that mattered was made by the powers that moved the world. For my whole life the goal was to move away from that era, not to see it recreated. Also, this is a debate that English speakers can enjoy on a website for an US based accelerator. Most of humanity doesn’t even have the standing to be heard in this conversation.
	▲	palmotea an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This is going to blow your mind No. it won't blow anyone's mind. Not a single person. > but people created music, literature, art long before intellectual property laws existed. ^^^ cherry-picked, incomplete reading of history.

▲

dnautics an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's really foolish to claim one doesn't exist and should be abolished

Hear me out. Property rights exist to assign stewardship and use rights over rivalrous goods. goods where the use of the good precludes the use of that good for its purpose by another party. If you take my bike, I cannot ride it to work. This concept exists to prevent violent conflict over non-shareables and to prevent the tragedy of the commons (see the highly successful fisheries rights, NOx and SOx emissions markets as propertization schemes)

"Intellectual property" (except for trademark if you want to get pedantic), is not rivalrous, and its primary purpose is to be shared, not hoarded. Therefore intellectual property isn't a thing, creating it as a legal construct was a mistake that has hamstrung society for a long time.

▲

qarl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, that's why I said property (not just IP) is a social construct.

▲

palmotea 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I'm agreeing with you.

	▲	qarl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OH. Cool.