There’s a curious irony in the ongoing debate about artificial intelligence and its training using copyrighted material. As humans, from our earliest years right up until our last days, we continuously learn, mostly from materials created by others, quite often protected by copyright. Schools, universities, public libraries, and the vast repositories of knowledge available online freely provide us with free access to this copyrighted content to enrich our minds and advance our understanding of the world around us.

Yet, when it comes to AI, many suddenly cry foul, resisting AI’s access to similar resources. Why is this? We freely share knowledge with our children, students, and colleagues, knowing that an educated mind benefits us all. Yet, there’s hesitation and fear when applying the same logic to AI.

We’re all familiar with the concept of ‘garbage in – garbage out.’ We wouldn’t deliberately feed garbage to our children and expect them to become knowledgeable, capable individuals. Yet, we restrict AI’s access to quality knowledge, expecting perfect results nonetheless. Calling this situation merely ‘ironic’ doesn’t quite capture the absurdity of it.

Let’s step back for a moment and reconsider. When hiring someone, we naturally seek well-educated candidates, knowing their knowledge will directly benefit our organizations and society as a whole. So, shouldn’t the same principle apply to AI? After all, AI assistants and systems are rapidly becoming integral parts of business and daily life. Wouldn’t we prefer them to be well-educated, precise, and capable rather than restricted, limited, and error-prone?

The fear that AI will somehow “take” creativity or intellectual property is understandable but largely misplaced. AI doesn’t diminish creativity or intellectual property; it amplifies our human capabilities. Imagine the innovation, efficiency, and growth possible when we fully empower AI with broad and diverse knowledge.

Of course, this debate isn’t without valid counterpoints. Creators and rights holders rightly worry about mass copying and potential infringement, as seen in ongoing lawsuits and calls for licensing frameworks. These concerns highlight the need for balanced solutions, perhaps voluntary deals between AI developers and publishers, that protect intellectual property without halting progress. After all, history shows us that technological shifts, like tractors replacing horses in agriculture, don’t eradicate the old; horses didn’t vanish but found new roles in leisure and sport, while tractors evolved into intelligent and capable machines that revolutionized farming. Similarly, empowering AI could redirect human creativity toward higher pursuits, fostering collaboration rather than competition.

Ultimately, progress will prevail, as it always does, but the path we choose determines how much friction and delay we endure. By shifting our perceptions from fear to opportunity, embracing AI as an extension of human ingenuity, we can accelerate toward a society where knowledge flows freely, enriching both machines and minds for a brighter, more innovative future.

5 responses

  1. Peter,

    Thank you for this thought-provoking piece – it really got me reflecting.

    I agree with much of your argument: it is ironic how freely we share copyrighted knowledge with our children, students, and peers, yet hesitate to apply the same logic to AI. The comparison is powerful – and fair.

    Still, I believe there’s room for a simple and fair compromise:

    Commercial AI providers could pay a small, mandatory fee into an independent knowledge fund. This fund would support the creators and platforms whose work helped train these models – much like royalties or public lending rights.

    It’s not about limiting AI, but about ensuring that those who feed these systems are also acknowledged and supported.

    And maybe the parent analogy fits even better here: parents teach their kids for free not for profit, but in hopes that someday the kid will help fix the Wi-Fi. 😉

    We pass on knowledge as an investment – and in the AI age, maybe it’s time to make sure that investment flows back, too.

    Thanks again for sparking this line of thought

    Matthias

    1. Thank you Matthias, I really appreciate the practical spirit of this suggestion. A dedicated, independent knowledge fund feels like a fair middle ground: it recognizes creators, supports long-term cultural infrastructure, and keeps innovation flowing. Of course the design details matters (who governs the fund, how fees are set, and how proceeds are distributed). Is this you volunteering? 😀

  2. slowlydeep6da4cb93de Avatar
    slowlydeep6da4cb93de

    Thank you for this thought-provoking piece – it really got me reflecting.

    I agree with much of your argument: it is ironic how freely we share copyrighted knowledge with our children, students, and peers, yet hesitate to apply the same logic to AI. The comparison is powerful – and fair.

    Still, I believe there’s room for a simple and fair compromise:
    Commercial AI providers could pay a small, mandatory fee into an independent knowledge fund. This fund would support the creators and platforms whose work helped train these models – much like royalties or public lending rights.

    It’s not about limiting AI, but about ensuring that those who feed these systems are also acknowledged and supported.

    And maybe the parent analogy fits even better here: parents teach their kids for free not for profit, but in hopes that someday the kid will help fix the Wi-Fi. 😉
    We pass on knowledge as an investment – and in the AI age, maybe it’s time to make sure that investment flows back, too.

    Thanks again for sparking this line of thought

  3. jollyalmost3ab3ff002c Avatar
    jollyalmost3ab3ff002c

    Great points! It really is ironic how we freely share knowledge with people but hesitate when it comes to AI. Finding the right balance between protecting creators and letting AI learn seems key.

    1. You’re spot on there, it’s about finding that balance. There is a huge amount of royalty-free material to use, but the copyrighted content that we freely benefit from proves more useful. We should set up a fund to compensate the creators accordingly; I do think there is room in all the profits made by AI parent companies 😉

Leave a reply to jollyalmost3ab3ff002c Cancel reply

Recently Published: