Dear Reader,

AI is like fire. It's a technology we have figured out how to make, how to harness, and it is used for bad as well as good. I assume now that we have the ability to use both fire and AI, we will continue to use both even if some of us think we shouldn't.

We do have some success in limiting and controlling technologies after creating them, such as nuclear warheads and powerplants, but if making a nuke was as easy as striking a match or programming a computer, I suspect that wouldn't be the case. 

I say this to point out why I don't entertain the "put the cat back in the bag" argument. I don't agree with it, but even if I did I would have to acknowledge that effort I put in that direction will be wasted. 

As I understand it, according to the current rhetoric there are three main critiques of AI and the harm it does:

1) Theft of intellectual property.

2) Energy usage and environmental impact.

3) Replacing human labor

Let's tackle each of these one by one.

1 - Theft of intellectual property

Yes, that clearly wasn't cool. There exist public domain databases that could have been used as we figured out what methods worked, and then once those methods did work we could have demanded that organizations and individuals who want to train on copywritten material could have negotiated with property owners just like everyone else. 

However, much like an AI, I have learned by looking at a lot of intellectual property that I don't own. I am allowed to draw Batman, or Mickey Mouse, but I am not allowed to sell those derivative works without license from the copyright holders. I can take inspiration from those works and create a new superhero or cartoon which I do own and I can use and sell as I please. Without the ability to learn from properties I don't own, I can't participate in the larger conversation of art and commerce as we have decided it works. 

Is our copyright system the ideal, is this actually the best system for managing ideas? Probably not, but I don't have a new system to pitch at the moment either. Point being, if users of AI are still not allowed to sell infringing work, the fact that AI could produce infringing work seems to comply with the norms as we've established them. 

I suspect we will need to have a huge overhaul of how we think about ideas, ownership, and art both culturally and legally, because the system we have been using cannot keep up with the current situation. As such, I don't think AI is inherently bad here, I think it is running afoul of the existing problems in our existing systems. 

2 - Energy Usage and Environmental Impact

Yup, this seems pretty bad.