@James @emilymbender with a lens that AI is useful and going to stay relevant for some time despite the myriad harms, to me this becomes obvious: they are trying for regulatory capture through fear mongering.

Nobody gets to own sovereign AI or have their own ‘intelligence’ they can run and use at their leisure how they see fit; it’s simply too dangerous.

Therefore, you must rent it from us, at recurring cost, indefinitely, because we are the only ones who can ensure it is used ‘responsibly’.

@chx ASI, unfortunately.

@futurebird like for the most part I feel that it’s just a common sense thing. We shouldn’t be destroying knowledge as a means of intaking it due to a copyright rule. These companies should be required to preserve their own library or something and then if the company dissolves it should go into a public trust. This specific thing is a solvable problem outside of, you know, probably millions of books already being destroyed.

I just get the sense that this is a flock-like “duh” situation.

@futurebird I truly think if a considered effort about this got out without the typical anti-AI stuff attached (not that I’m saying that’s an incorrect point of view), the general public at large if they were informed about how there is no preservation happening and we have to basically buy information back that was already ours… they won’t like that.

I think this narrow area, which is critically important to our civilization is something that actually could be changed with amended laws.