The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I think this dodges the question.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: here is a question for you (see in situ)

I think this dodges the question.

We need to focus on human rights and human beings which actually do exist, not theoretical constructs about an AI future which probably wont.

People get all jazzed about future AI bots but who knows what will happen in the future. People speculate that because there were sentient computer programs in "the matrix" that were just like the human brains in the matrix that somehow this will be a true ethical problem in the future. But this was science fiction. There is no way human consciousness is going to be sucked out of our brains and put into computers or other cloned brains. This is a pretty weak argument to make as a support for modern IP law.

copying patterns does not steal anything from anyone. Even if someone could suck your thoughts out of you, you still have your thoughts. You own yourself regardless of someone else's use of patterns. This is why we need to get rid of IP in its current form. Now people (monsanto) are patenting the patterns of life, even human DNA. They could use this IP to claim that they own the DNA. But our self ownership is tied to the ownership of our physical bodies, not to patters or IP.

You claim that IP is required for self ownership. I think that abolition of IP will be required for self-ownership in the future.