Is AI going to kill human copyright?

In an AGI post-labor economy, where robotics and AI complete 100% of work that humans used to do, what happens to the ownership behind the art, content, and words generated? What happens to the content creators and their work?

How will antiquated human copyright law stand up?

In this video, I discuss.

Drop your thoughts in the comments!

[Loadlng]

I believe that copyright has been outdated since we have gotten common internet access, im not endorsing piracy but any atempt to avoid it has failed so far so i expect it to fail in the future.

[michaelferentino]

I’m so glad I finally found someone who is as passionate and optimistic about artificial intelligence. I’ve been following this technology since the early 00s when I first read Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near.” Great channel. Well done!

[HarryJoiner]

Recently discovered your channel. It’s fantastic.

[jamesward]

Really appreciate your opinion. It's easy to get lost in the bs news around AI. I do genuinely believe this is the human enlightenment moment we have waited 12000 years for - it won't be an easy transition, but we have a very positive and revolutionary future arriving. Please keep producing

[jd_real]

Gotta love YouTube trolls demanding a CAPTCHA test to prove you're human…because having a smile that lights up the camera and being ridiculously good on video isn’t proof enough

[chaserivera]

Great video. I would like to see one about the topic of the actor strikes and ai replacing actors and youtubers. Like Microsoft’s Vasa-1

[alexander]

I was discussing this recently with various people stating Copyright may no longer be enforced and/or valid based on the projections & capabilities of AI towards creating graphics, video content, music, etc. Your video sends chills down my spine as I have not found another individual who's spoken on this topic in this manner.

[ayaiai]

The American Indian tribes must have thought barbarians were invading, with those Europeans' concepts of "land ownership". Future generations (and even future versions of ourselves) will wonder about how humans could think anyone could "own" ideas and thoughts, if even for a limited period of time.

[franzplagens]

It's interesting to study hunter-gatherer indigenous people, like the Australian Aborigines, and what they thought of ownership. They had a hard time adjusting to our ownership system. We worked hard to buy a house, car, etc., where they'd work hard and never accumulated enough money to do the same, because they'd share their income with their relatives.

[chrismaxwell]

Copyright covers code and software. When AI is writing software and it already is and that can't be copyrighted that's going to shake up the IT world.

[stevenjordan]

I don't think copyright will be lost but it will become a sphere of protection like in the old days where it gave a short time for original artwork to have its day in the sun or even be like movie licencing it last for 10 years if nothing's continued with that project and you may even see original projects made then subsequent projects made in the normal process for then by ai till it goes into public domain, but this is all before it makes its way into ai is the tools everyone uses and there is nothing else

[poppins]

There's no use in fighting this battle for the protection of IP. AI is going to take all of the research available to it and make our lives better and longer. It would be selfish to keep your IP as for profit only when it may help push humanity toward a more utopian future where people get to choose how long they want to live instead of waiting to die...

Thanks again Julia. It's always great to see you reporting on this.

[erich]

The singularity is so near that all current concepts of monetary value will soon be meaningless. The incredible gulf between ordinary citizens and the super wealthy will disappear more quickly and completely than any government programs could ever hope to accomplish. I do not fear the doom scenario that so many others in responsible positions fear. I would share my reasons if I could put them into words. But I cannot.

[ThomasJDavis]

Yeah, I think the main point of copyright is securing someone's ability to make money from their own ideas. Ideally, it maximizes the revenue for the individual who had the idea or who made the thing by controlling its distribution. In a post-scarce world, the main reason for ownership of an idea is recognition, not monetization. We value things that we put effort into, and value things that we make sacrifices for, in either acquiring or creating. But even when it comes to recognition, we don't need the world to know about our new idea, unless it could improve the lives of the masses. But even then, we don't need the world to give us attention. The attention that should matter is from the people who we care about and who we live our lives with every day.

No one needs fame. What positive impact has fame had on any individual that has not been outweighed by its negative impacts? A lot of celebrities throw their lives away, get into trouble with drugs and other crimes because they think they're bullet proof or that they're above the law. This goes for both in entertainment and in sports. No one needs fame. What we need is love from our families and friends, and belonging in a community.

Social media has democratized fame to some extent. But it has completely spoiled attention expectations of content creators, and spoiled the attention spans of the consumers. Hopefully A.I. will be part of the solution for mental/emotional healing from the damage social media has done to us. Less quantity, more quality.

edit: as a side note, crypto NFTs do not solve the distribution problem for people's content, it only signifies that something is an original piece of content and what wallet owns it.

[sdtsdt]

Julia, great channel and great show as always. I'm a musician, so I understand the issue about copyright and IP, but shouldn't the same rules that apply to me, apply to AI?

I think that you could make the argument that any music I create is based on every piece of music I've ever heard in my lifetime, correct? Certainly they've influenced me.

And if you heard my tunes, you'd probably know who influenced me. But you wouldn't know exactly, which is why I don't get sued. You can hear the influences, but not direct rip-offs.

Shouldn't we apply the same rules to AI? Is there a valid analogy to be made between AI scraping the internet and me listening to records, radio and other forms of music throughout my lifetime and then basing my songs on that body of work?

I know this is deep, Matrix-level s**t, but we've got to start thinking about it, and I'm glad you are...

[lancemarchetti]

Microsoft's Bing AI image generation incorporates digital signing within the image using RSA certificate encryption. Just for those who find that interesting...

[SharkYNate]

Finally someone who thinks outside of the current paradigm!

[Kezer]

The biggest question from the video is, “What did the shirt say?’ But I think I figured it out by the end. Now to go back and not get distracted. Good fun stuff! Fun to think about :)

[OldEarthWisdom]

I wonder what "better" content would be? I wonder if AI will be able to create content that feels like it is coming from a vulnerable place inside a human.

[wilson_joe]

If everything got created by ai and copyright changed what companies end up practically owning everything? Are you sure your not ai. ?