I was reading about how Anthropic has settled a copyright case for 1.5 billion dollars after it used a database of pirated books to train Claude AI. For instance, a Finnish author whose book was in the set will get about 3,000€ out of the settlement. However, I believe that this proves the usecase for blockchain copyrighting, where "proof of origin" can be proven immutably.
I also think it raises the case for micropayments to original authors of any content that is discovered by searches or is used to train AI or to provide any kind of AI-generated response. While the AI companies can own the algorithms and infrastructure, the content they are generating is not theirs, and is derived by normal people globally.
This also raises another possibility, where people who use AI to generate content that they earn from, will also be subjected to micro pay original authors whose work went into the AI amalgamation. Because even if the outcome of the work is original to the AI, what went into creating it isn't. And this is more than an artist who gets inspired by the work of another, because there is no inspiration in the AI, there is no work done by the AI or the content creator prompting it, it is just an algorithm that delivers a predictable result, even if not predictable to the human observer.
Artificial Intelligence is going to decimate almost every industry that is currently in existence, as it will increasingly and rapidly encroach deeper and deeper into all human domains, replacing not only human thought, but human action also. AI will be able to design machines that replicate our movements and program the machines to think enough like us to be consistently better, with improving accuracy all of the time and at some point, we will not be able to add value of any kind.
As I was saying to someone the other day, even in "safe" fields like electrical and plumbing, a large part of what makes them safe is the inconsistencies in standardisation. Once standards have complete compliance, it will be only non-compliant systems that will need human intervention, and these will decrease as they are brought up to standard.
If earning has to be part of the human ecosystem and we can assume for a little while at least that it will, it means that we are going to have to find new ways to earn, and those who have created in the past something that is still getting used, should get royalties from it. AI companies shouldn't be able to earn based on the content they have stolen and that content gap of earning should be pushed back to the original creators. And a creator earning from the AI creation, should be able to earn on their ideas for content, but should have to factor in remuneration for original authors too.
This seems like an impossible task, but it is not, because we have the technology to not only store the required information, but also track and retrieve all of the information required in order to distribute earnings fairly. And not only would this improve the distribution of equity in content, but it will also improve the information sources themselves, and be able to feed a web of trust directly to validate all kinds of data, from content to event, so that a reliability confidence score can be applied.
While I am not a huge fan of all this data driving our lives, it isn't going to change at scale because it comes with a massive amount of value and convenience as well. As much as I don't like it in many respects, I still benefit from ease of use and information availability, so we should be designing the information ecosystem to work for our wellbeing, not against it.
Wellbeing should be the focus of everything we do as a society, and business activity should be looking to maximise our wellbeing - and in so doing, maximise profits. And this is where the ability to measure impact really matters, because if we are only looking at corporate metrics as success factors, we are going to miss the damage done to humanity to reach those same numbers. We need to look at betterment for humanity first, and then see what activity leads to improving it further - and monetise that. As the activities change, so do the incentives.
But to do this requires a lot of data and processing power, which means that the AI companies will stull be earning from providing infrastructure and improved algorithms that help us make better decisions, and act on them.
Ultimately, the only measurements that matter are those that lead to improving humanity and can be used to keep us advancing, keep us growing, keep us innovating, and evolving ourselves for the better. AI definitely can play a massive role in this journey, not as a content creator, but a facilitation tool that helps us build the systems required. The trouble is, if monetary profit is the only focus, the tools are not used for wellbeing improvement, because with the society we have currently established, there isn't enough money in it.
I wonder if any of my content has been used to train an AI.
Can I find out and if it has, should I be compensated?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
