Anil Dash observes (over on Bluesky, where we can’t link it yet) that venture capital’s playbook for AI is the same one it tried with crypto and Web3 and first used for Uber and Airbnb: break the laws as hard as possible, then build new laws around their exploitation.The VCs’ actual use case for AI is treating workers badly.The Writer’s Guild of America, a labor union representing writers for TV and film in the US, is on strike for better pay and conditions. One of the reasons is that studio executives are using the threat of AI against them. Writers think the plan is to get a chatbot to generate a low-quality script, which the writers are then paid less in worse conditions to fix
It really is one of the real issue of regulation that we need to face as a society -- it is always going to be more profitable to be allowed to change the existing rules in a way that allows for extra profit. The deference we give high flying venture capitalists and tech firms really does create a profit opportunity.
- If you don't have to follow hotel rules then you can make hospitality cheaper (AirBnB) at the cost of your neighbors
- If you can see securities without following security laws (BitCOIN) then you can make money with a superior regulatory framework (and I will believe that crypto is currency when it stops inflating in price and becomes a stable store of value)
- Uber manages to treat drivers as independent contractors despite incredible control over them via the application
Where does ChatGPT get its data?ChatGPT’s data comes from a massive dataset that includes a diverse range of sources such as websites, books, news articles, and journals.
Just like the controversy with AI art in D&D, this mostly seems to be a mix of autocomplete and the ability to indirectly use copyrighted material without attribution or license.
In any case, this is an interesting perspective and one that I suggest our readers will find quite interesting. It's also going to be a very contentious area of law -- with the most interesting piece being the journalist just assuming that AI will eventually be able to copyright art. Keep in mind that this is a very interesting direction to go -- if I feed in a picture to be tweaked by AI have I just removed copyright? What if the tweaks are imperceptible?
So I think this intersection between Tech and Intellectual Property Law is an interesting area for our readers to follow.
P.S. Our editor, Mark, wanted to highlight this article as well.