I’ve seen many posts fly around social media (especially LinkedIn) lately in response to Jack and Elon’s comments about abolishing IP.
Many are full of moral certainty: protecting creators, defending innovation, upholding what’s “right.”
As someone studying AI’s impact on work, I’ve been thinking about what’s actually at stake in these debates.
Not just legally, but structurally.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about who can claim the moral high ground in the AI and IP law conversation.
The tension between AI and IP isn’t about ethics vs. theft.
It’s about a system struggling to control what it can’t contain.
When people speak about IP law with moral certainty, I always wonder whose morality they defend.
Creators? Or the systems that decide which creators matter?
Maybe the current system isn't about protecting creator IP.
Maybe, in practice, it's about deciding which company's IP gets to stay exclusive longer.
Certainty is easy when one outsources complexity to law and call it ethics.
Note: This isn’t a fully formed argument. I’m just poking at an idea that’s been bothering me.
Send this to someone who might find meaning in it.
Share it so others can discover it, too.
This is how we grow. One connection at a time. 🌱
Subscribe to Eric's Blog to receive new posts directly to your inbox.
Eric P. Rhodes
Over 100 subscribers
https://blog.epr.net/ai-ip-moral-high-ground?referrer=0xC0a643f80D5cbD633FfD3e778caBB6993bDcC319
Explore the complex relationship between AI and intellectual property in a thought-provoking post by @epr. The discussion highlights the strife between ethical considerations and corporate control in IP debates, questioning which interests truly deserve protection. Dive into this critical dialogue now!