Intellectual property should never have existed, and AI is a big step towards its extinction

An artist who creates with the intention of selling isn’t an artist, but a seller. The same goes for a scientist who wants to discover a cure for an illness, or an engineer who wants to create something revolutionary. Creators want their creations to be realized, not the merit that comes from them. The best creations have no creators. No one knows who invented the chair, mathematics, science, plastic, or fire. Imagine how rich the inventor of the wheel would be if they had patented it.

Of course, I don’t mean that creators don’t deserve merit, or money. I mean that a true creator values the creation itself, not what comes after it. A father doesn’t have a child thinking about the day he will retire and be cared for by the child, living at the child’s expense.

Van Gogh had a short life as an artist, and his resources to live it were even shorter. His meager income provided him with paintbrushes and food, and nothing more. He died without recognition. You know the rest. Sure, it could have worked out even if he had done it for money too. A better example, in our modern context, is Linux. I don’t think I need to explain.

But without money, how can inventors have the resources to invent? I don’t know. How did they do back then? Maybe they won’t have them, and they won’t invent. Maybe investors will support them. I’m sure that if people had known Linux’s potential before it was created, someone would have paid for Linus’s meals while he worked. Science and technology have always attracted investors for obvious reasons: industrial and medical development. But art? That’s an elite thing, for rich families. Nowadays, though, it’s something infinitely more accessible. And people still want to believe it has the same value (economic, social, and moral). Impossible.

If Linus had charged for his work, he would surely be a billionaire (if he isn’t already). Even so, he didn’t. Why? I don’t know, because I didn’t research it. But it wouldn’t be fair to do so, since he didn’t pay to see the light of day. Linus didn’t need to pay to look at the sky and notice that there are day and night. People shouldn’t pay for the truth. And knowledge is the truth. And no one can own knowledge, because no one owns the truth. These are discoveries. Linux is a discovery by Linus, just as mathematics was (possibly) discovered by the Egyptians. Would it be fair to charge someone for using mathematics just because a group (or even an individual) discovered it? I think you get my point.

Does anyone here know what a pentomino is? No one. Okay—someone does, but almost nobody compared to the number of people who know Tetris. Pentomino was the inspiration for Tetris. Do you know the creators of Tetris? I assume not, though there are exceptions. And what would they prefer: to be known themselves, or for their work to be known? Again, I didn’t research it, but I don’t care. Doing it for money is greed; doing it for recognition is vanity. Doing it for people is charity. True art is free, with no owner. The truth has no owner.

Now, with AI, this becomes even clearer. Anyone can make something inspired by an artwork. What used to be made more accessible through money and knowledge is now infinitely more accessible thanks to AIs. You don’t need to know how to paint to make a painting. You don’t need to know how to compose to see your thoughts in verses. Who owns that?