Holy shit, nobody is arguing for a genocide of Jews, we are just demanding Israel stops committing genocide against Palestinians. Both sidesing genocide is really not a good look, especially when Israel is clearly the aggressor.
And again, I am not talking about a legal concept like interlectual property.
If not intellectual property then why intellectual property shaped though? You haven't really articulated how your version of "consent" is functionally any different from the concept of IP.
Well, your argument is that that LLMs are against anarchist principles because ... the company that trained them using publicly available data didn't ask permission first. Does that sum it up? I get that in an ideal anarchist world we would expect consent to have been respected, I agree with you on that. But I also think there's a vast difference between coerced to give your labour to some random LLM company, vs them taking a digital copy directly off the internet to train their model. If digital piracy is not theft, then it's hard for me to fathom what the moral injury is here.
Ok, so to bring the debate back to whether such models are compatible with anarchism, are you saying that even if there were no other issues, your main sticking point is that scraping of every [published] website in existence to train these models was/is non-consentual? Because it didn't respect some TOS somewhere? I think you'll find most anarchists don't give a damn about such things. Surely all human knowledge should be freely available to all, not paywalled behind some business model, or locked in a digital fortress. I mean what do you mean by "ethical" here? Because that's often a matter of perspective.
You really think it is morally ok to pirate art against the explicit request by an artist to not do so?
Yes, if it's posted in public, just as it's ok to pirate games from corporations who don't want you to do so. If artists want to keep their art private, then go for it! Don't put it on a public platform. There is still much value in the "original" artwork of artists compared to copies, though obviously less so for digital art. We need only look at the valuations for paintings by famous artists. But copies were always worth less than the originals, and so they should be... especially if the production/distribution costs for copies are approaching zero. Do I think artistseveryone should be paid fairly for their labor? Yes, absolutely. Is copyright the answer to this problem? Absolutely not. It's fundamentally been co-opted by corporate rent-seekers. Even if it was once designed to protect artists, it's prime purpose now is corporate profiteering. I'm also curious why "artists" is the hill libs love to die on wrt genAI. Nobody gave a shit when automation was replacing factory and auto workers, but now the comfortable middle class is suddenly affected, you're all losing your minds.
After 25 years at Adobe, he deserves a far worse fate.
YATA
Who would find this meme objectionable?
Whoa there, tiger. It is obvious. You don't need to throw definitions at me.
Begging your pardon your majesty. But that's what it looks like from over here.
Holy shit, nobody is arguing for a genocide of Jews, we are just demanding Israel stops committing genocide against Palestinians. Both sidesing genocide is really not a good look, especially when Israel is clearly the aggressor.
If not intellectual property then why intellectual property shaped though? You haven't really articulated how your version of "consent" is functionally any different from the concept of IP.
Well, your argument is that that LLMs are against anarchist principles because ... the company that trained them using publicly available data didn't ask permission first. Does that sum it up? I get that in an ideal anarchist world we would expect consent to have been respected, I agree with you on that. But I also think there's a vast difference between coerced to give your labour to some random LLM company, vs them taking a digital copy directly off the internet to train their model. If digital piracy is not theft, then it's hard for me to fathom what the moral injury is here.
Which legal/ethical framework are you talking about where one needs the author's consent to read public text? edit: added ethical
Ok, so to bring the debate back to whether such models are compatible with anarchism, are you saying that even if there were no other issues, your main sticking point is that scraping of every [published] website in existence to train these models was/is non-consentual? Because it didn't respect some TOS somewhere? I think you'll find most anarchists don't give a damn about such things. Surely all human knowledge should be freely available to all, not paywalled behind some business model, or locked in a digital fortress. I mean what do you mean by "ethical" here? Because that's often a matter of perspective.
Totally agree with your assessment.
They were civil they were just off topic. Voyager is not the topic of the discussion.
Its not up to me to justify your claim or otherwise. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
What about DeepSeek, they have released open weights, and their models are definitely not toys.
We dont have a "general" tolerance. We have a tolerance for local non-corporate models.
That's just a random thought, not something substantiated by any evidence presented.
This whole comment chain is way off topic.
Yes, if it's posted in public, just as it's ok to pirate games from corporations who don't want you to do so. If artists want to keep their art private, then go for it! Don't put it on a public platform. There is still much value in the "original" artwork of artists compared to copies, though obviously less so for digital art. We need only look at the valuations for paintings by famous artists. But copies were always worth less than the originals, and so they should be... especially if the production/distribution costs for copies are approaching zero. Do I think
artistseveryone should be paid fairly for their labor? Yes, absolutely. Is copyright the answer to this problem? Absolutely not. It's fundamentally been co-opted by corporate rent-seekers. Even if it was once designed to protect artists, it's prime purpose now is corporate profiteering. I'm also curious why "artists" is the hill libs love to die on wrt genAI. Nobody gave a shit when automation was replacing factory and auto workers, but now the comfortable middle class is suddenly affected, you're all losing your minds.The internet is also a control tool, better get off now - WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
Go for it, there's no rule against it.
Wtf racist shitpost is this?
TERF Island aka the UK made a terrible call on this. Don't run interference for them.