Comment by derangedHorse

> If all of us can go hunting in the woods and yet there is still game to be found, then there's no compelling reason to define and litigate who "owns" those woods.

Property rights don't just protect natural resources, but labor as well. If I cleared out hunting ground in that forest to be the prime spot to catch animals, I would make sure I can use it when I want.

> a small number of people were able to completely deplete parts of the earth

A small number of people seems inaccurate when there's typically many more individuals in the pipelines for these technologies.

> and in return profit off the knowledge over and over again at industrial scale

Not off just that knowledge, there needed to be a model trained on the data of many others to utilize it.

> Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article?

Who's better at writing in this scenario and what are my motivations? If it's ChatGPT and I did it for money, then I would say I should recognize that I can't compete and find something AI can't do. If it's ChatGPT and I write to convey my ideas in an effort to learn regardless of the bestowment of a new perspective on the reader, I'll keep writing.

> Why would anyone plant seeds on someone else's farm?

They wouldn't unless it was their own way to attain food and survive. And if it's not the only way, they can defer to those with optimal methods to get it the cheapest they can in the market.