I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • PropaGandalfOPM
    link
    English
    01 year ago

    But is this still true in the days of AI and automation? What if not we humans but some neural networks will be the main researchers of tomorrow? I’m just thinking

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Copyright law has already foreseen that possibility. Only things created by humans are eligible for copyright, and there are already cases where copyright was denied for work generated by an AI.