alt Hacker NewsLaws are not intellectual property of individuals or companies, they belong to the public. That's a fundamentally different type of content to "learn" from. I totally agree that AI can save a lot of time, but I don't agree that the creators of Tailwind don't see any form of compensation.
It does not feel not right to me that revenue is being taken from Tailwind and redirected to Google, OpenAI, Meta and Anthropic without 0 compensation.
I'm not sure how this should codified in law or what the correct words are to describe it properly yet.
I see what you're getting at, but CSS is as much an open standard as the law. Public legal docs written against legal standards aren't fundamentally dissimilar to open source libraries written against technical standards.
While I am all for working out some sort of compensation scheme for the providers of model training data (even if indirect via techniques like distillation), that's a separate issue from whether or not AI's disruption of demand for certain products and services is per se harmful.