That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
Then a provision should be made in the legal code to grant a creator the royalties to their creations if they're used to feed an AI
That's not a small task. You are talking about rewriting the entire work for hire legal code. There honestly is no difference between allowing another human to take over your position, or an AI. The fact that an AI is better and faster at mimicry really doesn't change anything.
The company paid you for your time while you were working there. You have no rights to work product beyond that compensation. Trying to legislate anything else would be nearly impossible at this point. It would be akin to doing away with employer/employee relationships altogether.
Arguably not a bad thing, but I don't see it happening.
Like he said, if you create for hire, your product belongs to your employer. Otherwise, what are they paying for? Even technical products can be patented by your employer.
That hasn't exactly been fair, either. Saying this as a researcher with patent work.
I agree, especially if and when the work on the patent has been performed outside of scheduled hours. It is especially galling when some outside entity becomes aware of the patent and tries to approach the company for the purpose of collaboration on a realization---and the company doesn't even call them back. And then lets the patents lapse. I am contemplating the publication of all my other invention-related work, simply because I don't believe in hiding my light under a bushel.
but it's like they're not only taking what you make, they're also creating a profile on the creator and taking that. It's like a form of plagarism! They're using you to train your replacement. Idk it just seems wrong
Any artist (or creator) for hire is always subject to his work being used not according to his wishes, or repurposed, or revised by others. Someone who builds a house for hire gets no say in what becomes of the house after it is turned over to its owners. You need to readjust your conception of what is right and wrong when free trade is involved. And have more confidence in the originality of creators.
Perhaps
That is exactly what the entertainment industry is squabbling about. People know they can lose the rights to use of their own voices and images. for all people in all fields, the question is, will all our relevance be lost. Elon Musk has delved into this at length. It is scary and folks don't want to address it. But if humans become less relevant as workers, then that can mean universal income is unavoidable (if the alternative is the population becoming destitute) He is not speaking like a communist, just a realist. An ostrich he is not. If we avoid succumbing to the globalists we will figure out a way for everyone to be ok without "paying people to do nothing" (greatly magnified welfare system). The idea of government assistance has the stigma of selling out or being told how to live. It depends upon the terms. There is no shame at all, in receiving social security. Except the amount is too low. That, is shameful.
Agree.