“The present IP system can be abused by actors powerful enough to abuse all of our legal systems, therefore we need a much more restrictive IP system” really isn’t clicking for me.
I continue to feel that:
1. The “AI” companies’ PR is based in creating sense of inevitability, and people who don’t like what they’re doing feel bulldozed.
2. This bulldozed feeling is a goal of the PR strategy, because it manifests as anti-“AI” people pitching mostly poorly thought-out and easily dismissed arguments in desperation.
I say some version of this every six weeks and every six weeks I get three polite faves and that’s it, so discount as you see fit.
@vruba I feel like I see this conjured inevitability a lot, driven by a similar engineering mindset.
“What if [doorknobs] + [playing music when you get home]?”
[laundry] + [automatically order soap]
[charging devices] + [no unsightly wires]
[driving] + [even the word “infotainment”, with freed attention to watch it]
Yadda yadda “they didn’t stop to think if they should” but so much of it targets shallow problems in the pursuit of presenting some sort of shiny awe about “the future” again.
