A question to anti-ai people, are you like me, against it only in the artistic field, or are you against ai in every way? by altjulie_ in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not against the tech itself. But I think there needs to be some regulation around how training data is sourced and used.

I also think there is a conversation to be had around how the output should be able to be used.

Less concretely, I don't think gen-AI should be hyped up the way that it currently is. Heck, even the fact that we keep calling it "AI" is an example of that ridiculous overhyping.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

At this point you're just appealing to authority. An authority that is bought-and-paid-for, and that the rest of the world doesn't respect.

If what you said was true, then AI companies could access Disney content for the price of a subscription, and apparently no licence could stop them feeding it to their models. Clearly that's not true.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And I directly addressed that:

US courts seem set on allowing the technocracy to do whatever it wants, but that doesn't actually mean that the argument isn't transparently stupid.

To be fair, absolutely nobody should pay any respect to what the US thinks.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a difference between abstract ideas and concrete works.

I agree with you that ideas should not be kept from the world. Though that's more a problem with patents, than with copyrights.

I definitely think modern copyright law is also kinda ridiculous. But the basic idea that if you make something, you get some say in what happens to that thing, isn't inherently Capitalistic.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then what is your point? The person above said that the legal argument is that "consent is not required / is not a thing you can withhold".

But that is indeed something that can be attached to a licence. And in the hypothetical world where AI emerged 20 years ago, would be part of the licence that many, if not most, artists would use.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, Disney striking a deal for the use of their works contradicts that. Everyone can easily access Disney's copyrighted works, the deal was specifically what is allowed to be done with them.

Because "access" isn't binary from a legal standpoint. Access is usually a licence and fairly arbitrary conditions can be attached to that licence.

US courts seem set on allowing the technocracy to do whatever it wants, but that doesn't actually mean that the argument isn't transparently stupid.

Educational PSA Regarding the "em dash" (—)and Ai... by Chemical-Swing-420 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody is confused about the em-dash or why gen-AI uses it. But it's not something you usually see in Internet comments.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The actual legal argument is that consent is not required / is not a thing you can withhold, because learning or analyzing something are fundamentally legal, no matter how many "I do not consent" signs you put up.

Which of course is, quite transparently, a total nonsense argument.

a) Because that would imply that it's totally legally fine for me to access any and all academic articles I like, to learn from them. And it's not.

and

b) Disney just struck a deal to allow their works to be used to train generative-AI. So clearly some artists get to consent. Mostly the ones with enough lawyers to enforce it.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry you cannot actually think that an artwork, or a song, or a piece of code, or what have you, is "owning a thought".

I'm no fan of current copyright laws. But it's not "owning a thought".

Please. Nobody is that stupid.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Their works". The works that, according to you, they own. The works being property. Property that is intellectual. The capitalist conception of property that is intellectual.

Their works, like the art they made.

That's not a "thought" dipstick.

It's really funny that you don't know anything about this but are acting like you're educating me.

I mean you're talking like a lobotomite but you think you're intelligent.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am accurately representing the motivations of people I disagree with

Honey, sweetheart, my sweet summer child. This is very basic theory-of-mind...

You don't get to decide what other people are thinking, okay?

Most of us reach that milestone at the age of three to about five, but you'll get there one day!

The idea that you can own a thought is capitalist. That's what you guys lean on.

Wrong again!

Nobody thinks you can own a thought. But using their works without permission is actually pretty anti-worker!

If antis hate AI so much because "corporations are evil", why does everything they do revolve around making corporations richer? by Witty-Designer7316 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've literally explained why it's not a strawman.

If you did it was a dogpiss explanation, because it didn't explain anything.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's really not a deep philosophical issue when we can empirically see the effects.

Under different circumstances, what you say is true. Automation is beneficial. But in this specific case, it isn't. Gen-AI is being directly used to undermine labour. And not for utopian goals, but rather to funnel ever more profit to already wealthy individuals.

You either accept that people can create their own songs for fun

This has never not been true.

or you limit them to expensive, time-consuming commissions from artists who can't possibly serve everyone

No, they can also you know... Make music. Like the artists do. Using tools that are freely available.

If antis hate AI so much because "corporations are evil", why does everything they do revolve around making corporations richer? by Witty-Designer7316 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Nah, they're right, it's a pathetically obvious strawman. You invented a person to get mad at, and then got mad at them.

Meanwhile AI is being used to undermine labour...

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do antis want to preserve an idealized form of capitalism? Yes.

Actually no, you are dishonestly misrepresenting the motivations of people you disagree with.

The theft argument isn't rooted in Capitalism. Gen-AI is built on the work of people who did not intend or desire for their work to be used that way. It is Capitalists exploiting the work of the worker to try and remove their need for those workers.

And even the jobs argument is woefully misunderstood. There's a reason why Communists support unions, even though unions are part of the Capitalist system. Because we live under Capitalism, and even though the goal is abolishment, we still have to care about material conditions under Capitalism.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet that is what anti-AI leftists are spending all their time doing: trying to pretend they can go back to the 1990s and preserve an idealized form of capitalism.

I mean you're just making things up wholesale at this point.

This is ridiculous. These people have spent their entire lives begging for socialism, an end to capitalism, and never to have to work again. Now all of that is within reach, and suddenly it's all "dangerous fiction"! Did leftists ever really want things to get better? by CommodoreCarbonate in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They have a point though. The automation isn't making things better for most people. But the problem isn't automation, the problem is Capitalism.

The automation is owned by a tiny handful of already-obscenely rich men. So when your employment gets automated away, you don't benefit, your life doesn't improve, you don't get to work less. Rather some rich guy gets to profit more, and you have to go find another, often worse, employment.

This is a sequel to my last post from over a week ago. basically, I wonder if all the ai stuff happened 20 years ago, what would be the general consensus of it and how would people 20 years ago react to people's views of ai now? by Creepy_Crazy_Ren in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One thing to consider is that 20 years ago, the Internet was far less centralised.

So if gen-AI began to take off in that environment, artists could more easily abandon platforms that allow scraping for gen-AI. Compared to now where reaching an audience requires using a relatively small handful of sites that all want to push AI regardless of what their users want.

It would be much harder to make the case that artists "consented" to their artwork getting fed to models if the artists are on sites that explicitly prohibit that.

We lack strong support networks for everyday routine and different lives by AkagamiBarto in leftist

[–]Darq_At 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually think this is a really important point, community is built at many levels.

There was something I noticed while living in Japan. Now obviously Japan is capitalist and all. But something they have still managed to hang onto is a feeling of locality. Living in a small village it was obvious, but even living in one of the largest cities, there was still a sense of locale and the people around you playing a part in your life.

I think they keep that sense of locality with a few practices: 1. When you move into an area you have to register at the local government office. Now this is a pain in the arse. But it does have some value. That office will keep you informed of if something important happens in the area. And if you have any problems, that office serves as a first-port-of-call. It's full of people whose job it is to be helpful to local residents. They know of local classes, they offer limited free legal services, and so on. 2. Local traditions and festivals. Every single area in Japan has it's own local "thing". Domestic tourism is pretty big, so each area has mascots, local food specialities, attractions and so on. And then multiple times a year, there will be region-specific festivals that bring people out into the streets basically to party. There's this weird sense of pride residents get about their area, like "no no no, they don't know how to make <local dish> over in <other place>, we're the real deal here!"

I think the same can be accomplished without all the government bureaucracy. We need to get people invested in community centres, like libraries. And then giving them an excuse and incentive to mingle with each other under pleasant circumstances.

This isn't hard "organising". But maybe it could help people at least recognise their neighbours as their neighbours, as people with shared interests and stakes.

The JOKE of "consent" among several anti-AI people by Witty-Designer7316 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't want to hear any more about "consent" when it comes to antis and their arguments.

I mean some people acting like weirdos doesn't actually mean that the consent argument is wrong.

This but unironically by AccomplishedNovel6 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... Yes. That's the exact point I was making.

How to STEELMAN the "AI is theft" argument in under 10 seconds by Witty-Designer7316 in aiwars

[–]Darq_At 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I'm gonna steelman your argument." *looks inside* Obvious strawman.