That would start by giving credit and compensation to the authors whose work was incorporated into the “shared sea” without their knowledge or consent.
It’s pretty dystopian to quote Gandhi’s views on private property in defense of companies whose stated goal is to privatize intelligence itself.
Yeah I get it. Creative workers need to be protected, but programmers are “different beast”.
No I am not defending companies whose stated goal is to privatize intelligence itself. In fact I oppose them. I hate when people put words in my mouth when I never said them.
We are clearly talking about two different things. I’m interested in the philosophy of collective knowledge; you’re focused on corporate privatization. Since you’re determined to put words in my mouth, there’s not much room for a real conversation here. Best of luck.
If the code is private, the same protections should be applied (I mean… as for everything). But there’s no implicit protection for code you are sharing for free in the first place. The most common licenses for open source code (and the concepts the code is built to work towards) are “do what you want with this” licenses. Not all, but most. There is no copyright, effectively, in this context.
This is very different from the work of an artist or writer, where the work is copyrighted, and the ownership is not given away.
None of this dismisses the creative nature of code (I believe “code is poetry” is a good mantra, and true - well-written code can be beautiful).
You oppose them, and yet the whole point of this thread is to argue that AI “liberates” writers.
The master’s tools will never destroy the master’s house. (Audre Lorde) You will not find liberation in a system whose purpose is to destroy you.