the government in its current form would have that flaw in the content distribution system, yes, but his main idea is that it would be like open-source ran in the sense of “government of the people”

if I read a book no one sues my brain for consumption

yes, this is the fundamental point

this brings up the question: what is a book? what is art? if an “AI” can now churn out the next harry potter sequel and people literally can’t tell that it’s not written by JK Rowling, then what does that mean for what people value in stories? what is a story? is this a sign that we humans should figure something new out, instead of reacting according to an outdated protocol?

yes, authors made money in the past before AI. now that we have AI and most people can get satisfied by a book written by AI, what will differentiate human authors from AI? will it become a niche thing, where some people can tell the difference and they prefer human authors? or will there be some small number of exceptional authors who can produce something that is obviously different from AI?

i see this as an opportunity for artists to compete with AI, rather than say “hey! no fair! he can think and write faster than me!”

yes, but that’s a different situation. with the LLM, the issue is that the text from copyrighted books are influencing the way it speaks. this is the same with humans.

are we no longer allowed to borrow books from friends?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJSTFzhs1O4

this is so fucking stupid though. almost everyone reads books and/or watches movies, and their speech is developed from that. the way we speak is modeled after characters and dialogue in books. the way we think is often from books. do we track down what percentage of each sentence comes from what book every time we think or talk?