Technology is not the problem, protecting creators is

[FrogReaver]

The distinction I am making is between the problem, economics, and the solution, politics. In the current economic system, this new technology is disruptive and causing economic problems. That’s not a political statement or question.

More specifically -
The technology is disruptive... that's pretty much the definition of technology! It's just painting that disruption in a negative instead of positive light (aka political spin).

The technology causes economic problems.... for who? Certainly not for the people using it to do things they never could have before. For some? Sure! Change always shakes up the winners and losers! Focusing only on the negatives while ignoring the positives is just another form of political spin.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then there's a third way: "There is nothing we can do because not enough people care enough to actually do something. "

I don't see the connection to what I said.

 

[trappedslider]

I don't see the connection to what I said.

to my eyes you presented only two choices "it's a problem, no it isn't, we should do something about it, no we shouldn't." hence my third choice.

 

[FrogReaver]

to my eyes you presented only two choices "it's a problem, no it isn't, we should do something about it, no we shouldn't." hence my third choice.

what 2 choices did i present?

 

[lynnfredricks]

I believe that creators need to agitate for ownership or sources, and restrictions on sourcing. There should be legal restrictions on using AI to create "new" "original" works based on other's works.

It's no different than someone mixing together several clips from TV or movies and making a whole new video. That is IP theft. AI and blockchains are tools. People using them with stolen sources should be just as legally liable than anyone using any technology that has come before it. Don't fear the technology. Instead, advocate for laws protecting creator's IP and rights. I believe if we focus on that problem, it won't matter what technologies appear in the future, we will have laid the groundwork to protect creators.

I agree, however the impact of AI advancements far, far outreach issues in this particular market space on their potential, devastating impact. It isn't merely another technology, but one that transforms virtually all other technologies. The creator impact is just one in a long bullet list of impacts.

 

[trappedslider]

what 2 choices did i present?

"it's a problem, we should do something about it, vs no it isn't, no we shouldn't."

 

[FrogReaver]

"it's a problem, we should do something about it, vs no it isn't, no we shouldn't."

Then I’m not seeing how your statement was a third option to those. I could see ‘ it’s a problem we shouldn’t do something about it ‘ as a third option.

but even then I was describing how the discussions go and not creating an exhaustive list of possibilities. But what you said doesn’t even appear to be a distinct possibility - so hopefully you get my confusion.

 

[trappedslider]

Then I’m not seeing how your statement was a third option to those. I could see ‘ it’s a problem we shouldn’t do something about it ‘ as a third option.

but even then I was describing how the discussions go and not creating an exhaustive list of possibilities. But what you said doesn’t even appear to be a distinct possibility - so hopefully you get my confusion.

would explaining thus be better: "It is a problem, but we won't be doing anything about it."

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The distinction I am making is between the problem, economics, and the solution, politics. In the current economic system, this new technology is disruptive and causing economic problems. That’s not a political statement or question. The next bit, “What should we do about it as a society?” that is a profoundly political question.

It is my view that most economic changes that are disruptive the disruption is felt in the political sphere.

Containerised and pallet, based shipping was an enormously economically disruptive innovation but the political fallout was largely confined to ship owners, port operators on one side and sailors and longshoremen on the other hand.
Peer to peer file distribution was pretty disruptive but the music industry was able to stall development for years because they had clout.

 

[MGibster]

AI isnt being used to help people,
It's being used to replace people.

You could say the same thing about mechanized farming. In colonial America, 90% of the population was directly involved in agriculture, but by 1960 only 8.5% of the labor force was in agriculture. What happened to all those agicultural laborers that were replaced by machines and other technologies? They went to work elsewhere which brought new opportunities and new problems. AI is going to replace some workers, or, more likely, it's going to make workers more productive meaning you'll need fewer of them for the same tasks.