What a brilliantly written and argued article, Cameron. I feel smarter for having read it, and you make some very valid arguments. The only bit I don't fully agree with is to start this America only. I think the EU could be well positioned to do this simultaneously.
I’d like to think a US-EU partnership is possible from the start, but unfortunately a pretty fractious time in our relationship (bc of this administration mostly)
I don't think that should stand the design of proper regulation in the way. This could be a chance for the EU to pivot from reactive and retroactive legislation, to future-oriented legislation, that also leaves room for investing in further research.
Brilliant essay, up to the point of suggesting a "solution" based on money:
Imagine you hadn't fallen into that trap: I, the reader, could then have imagined that a "solution" did not just belong to USA and US-national legalities, but was in fact a necessity belonging to the world at large - possibly including sanctions against countries doing nothing to equalize data as belonging to humanity/every creator on the internet. Which is just a preposterous thought of my inner 5-yr old.
These guys, the tech moguls and their conscious constituents know, that sucking up to the presidential environment in USA is equal to USA being the only country in the world that matters.
Solution: Go in the opposite direction. Keep reminding everyone that the world is round and that ALL thoughts matter. Cough.
For what it’s worth I am writing this essay series as a group of nested policy proposals designed to directly persuade regulators with practical recommendations implementable within the next decade or so.
I have at least 5 more essays in the works that will go into this and other issues more deeply
The short version is that morally i'm right there with you, but practically I think it will end up being flagship US regulatory action benefitting its citizenry first and global remedies following over time.
I suspect some countries will claim similar chains of logic as mine in the near future, but I can't come up with a practical way for them to tax/enforce against an American frontier lab without just driving them out of the country or it becoming a pass through tax onto model users (which probably ends up just a tax on corporations). Maybe there's an elegant solution? Open to ideas.
The river delta analogy is dangerous and should be avoided. I've read countless arguments where the same subtle mistake is made over and over again. It's so tempting to conflate copying with moving, but it's so fundamentally different.
With moving, you take my thing, which I then no longer have. With copying, we now both have a copy. Just like moving, this can be incredibly undesirable.
The comparison with libraries is solid though. They lend you a book with implied and possibly formalized usage expectations. You borrow the book, read it, then bring it back. The same goes for buying a book. You buy it, then you read it, then you could give it to others. But you don't copy it. This is an almost unspoken rule. The cost of copying is close to the cost of buying the book, so people don't do it.
I agree with your assessment when considering the text data layer by itself. It’s certainly not taking the tweets/essays/comments/etc in the sense of they disappear after ingestion by LLMs, but when we consider the knowledge generation ecosystem as a whole system then I do believe we are creating the conditions to effectively “move” the text data layer into a worse state than it is today via raw volume of low quality AI output and destroying the incentives to contribute.
I see. Maybe theft is an accurate description then after all. Those whose content is stolen will eventually stop contributing this way. The question is, what will they be doing the future. Creating content exclusively for AI companies? Some kind of paywalling/DRM? No doubt a lot will change.
What a brilliantly written and argued article, Cameron. I feel smarter for having read it, and you make some very valid arguments. The only bit I don't fully agree with is to start this America only. I think the EU could be well positioned to do this simultaneously.
Thank you for reading, Arjan!
I’d like to think a US-EU partnership is possible from the start, but unfortunately a pretty fractious time in our relationship (bc of this administration mostly)
I don't think that should stand the design of proper regulation in the way. This could be a chance for the EU to pivot from reactive and retroactive legislation, to future-oriented legislation, that also leaves room for investing in further research.
I agree! I just hope the frontier labs don’t retaliate by exiting the market if so.
Points! for referencing Elinor Ostrom.
🫡
What an informative, thought-provoking, and smooth read. Thank you!
Thank you kindly and appreciate your thoughts 🫡
Great job.
Thank you kindly
This is excellent! Belongs in the LRB.
That’s very kind. Thank you for reading!
This slaps. Really glad I read it
Thanks Spencer! I appreciate you taking the time to check it out.
Brilliant essay, up to the point of suggesting a "solution" based on money:
Imagine you hadn't fallen into that trap: I, the reader, could then have imagined that a "solution" did not just belong to USA and US-national legalities, but was in fact a necessity belonging to the world at large - possibly including sanctions against countries doing nothing to equalize data as belonging to humanity/every creator on the internet. Which is just a preposterous thought of my inner 5-yr old.
These guys, the tech moguls and their conscious constituents know, that sucking up to the presidential environment in USA is equal to USA being the only country in the world that matters.
Solution: Go in the opposite direction. Keep reminding everyone that the world is round and that ALL thoughts matter. Cough.
best, kk
Thanks for reading and appreciate your feedback
For what it’s worth I am writing this essay series as a group of nested policy proposals designed to directly persuade regulators with practical recommendations implementable within the next decade or so.
I have at least 5 more essays in the works that will go into this and other issues more deeply
The short version is that morally i'm right there with you, but practically I think it will end up being flagship US regulatory action benefitting its citizenry first and global remedies following over time.
I suspect some countries will claim similar chains of logic as mine in the near future, but I can't come up with a practical way for them to tax/enforce against an American frontier lab without just driving them out of the country or it becoming a pass through tax onto model users (which probably ends up just a tax on corporations). Maybe there's an elegant solution? Open to ideas.
The river delta analogy is dangerous and should be avoided. I've read countless arguments where the same subtle mistake is made over and over again. It's so tempting to conflate copying with moving, but it's so fundamentally different.
With moving, you take my thing, which I then no longer have. With copying, we now both have a copy. Just like moving, this can be incredibly undesirable.
The comparison with libraries is solid though. They lend you a book with implied and possibly formalized usage expectations. You borrow the book, read it, then bring it back. The same goes for buying a book. You buy it, then you read it, then you could give it to others. But you don't copy it. This is an almost unspoken rule. The cost of copying is close to the cost of buying the book, so people don't do it.
I agree with your assessment when considering the text data layer by itself. It’s certainly not taking the tweets/essays/comments/etc in the sense of they disappear after ingestion by LLMs, but when we consider the knowledge generation ecosystem as a whole system then I do believe we are creating the conditions to effectively “move” the text data layer into a worse state than it is today via raw volume of low quality AI output and destroying the incentives to contribute.
I see. Maybe theft is an accurate description then after all. Those whose content is stolen will eventually stop contributing this way. The question is, what will they be doing the future. Creating content exclusively for AI companies? Some kind of paywalling/DRM? No doubt a lot will change.
It’s a tough issue to wrangle for sure. Thanks for reading and participating in the discussion!