6 ms·

It may not look good, but it's a strong argument. The problem with the current discourse is that we're hung up on things that are largely irrelevant to providi

It may not look good, but it's a strong argument. The problem with the current discourse is that we're hung up on things that are largely irrelevant to providing an actual solution. Arguments like "my IP is being violated" completely fall apart under any scrutiny and are readily abandoned in favor of some other useful proxy-concerns like "It's just copy and paste, not art!". I refuse to believe that the art community is stupid enough to make arguments like that without some existential dread clouding their judgment. Do you really think anyone would complain if AI art didn't threaten their livelihood, in a space that usually celebrates inspiration and recognizes that IP rights often only benefit the biggest players? Do you really think a significant portion of that group would advocate for the strictest possible IP laws, which will wipe out a significant amount of human art as well, without some deeper motivation? The ultimate issue is that people are losing their livelihoods and the ability to engage in work that is meaningful to them. We need to develop social programs that ease their fall, not run circles around the emotionally satisfying arguments that would "really show the other side what's what!". Ironically, a bunch of people are reducing one side to money hungry thieves and the other to lazy luddites below a comment calling out this exact behavior.

satvikpendem 4y ago
> Do you really think anyone would complain if AI art didn't threaten their livelihood, in a space that usually celebrates inspiration and recognizes that IP rights often only benefit the biggest players? Do you really think a significant portion of that group would advocate for the strictest possible IP laws, which will wipe out a significant amount of human art as well, without some deeper motivation? This is what gets me about this whole argument. When you're agreeing with The Mouse about IP law, you know something has gone awry. In reality, we should remove arcane IP restrictions, not continue to add them further into society. Copyright is already, what, 100+ years on average? > The ultimate issue is that people are losing their livelihoods and the ability to engage in work that is meaningful to them. Indeed, people are using a moral argument to mask their deeper intent, their fear of the economic damage done to their livelihood. In this case the solution is not to further calcify their work, but to...solve the actual issue, via UBI and the like.
- eropple 4y ago
  > In this case the solution is not to further calcify their work, but to...solve the actual issue, via UBI and the like. Are you going to buy the necessary number of congressmen to make this happen? Because the people being aggrieved certainly can't afford to--and so "well just pass UBI" is the "just draw the rest of the owl" flavor of not-helping.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    It'll happen as more and more people start protesting such that politicians will have to support UBI, as well as corporations when no one has the money to buy their products. The need is simply not as strong currently as it is in the future. It's the central tenet in Marxist accelerationism theory.
    - eropple 4y ago
      I will concede the theoretical possibility, but, uh...Marxist acceleration theory doesn't have much of a track record.

satvikpendem 4y ago

> Do you really think anyone would complain if AI art didn't threaten their livelihood, in a space that usually celebrates inspiration and recognizes that IP rights often only benefit the biggest players? Do you really think a significant portion of that group would advocate for the strictest possible IP laws, which will wipe out a significant amount of human art as well, without some deeper motivation? This is what gets me about this whole argument. When you're agreeing with The Mouse about IP law, you know something has gone awry. In reality, we should remove arcane IP restrictions, not continue to add them further into society. Copyright is already, what, 100+ years on average? > The ultimate issue is that people are losing their livelihoods and the ability to engage in work that is meaningful to them. Indeed, people are using a moral argument to mask their deeper intent, their fear of the economic damage done to their livelihood. In this case the solution is not to further calcify their work, but to...solve the actual issue, via UBI and the like.

eropple 4y ago
> In this case the solution is not to further calcify their work, but to...solve the actual issue, via UBI and the like. Are you going to buy the necessary number of congressmen to make this happen? Because the people being aggrieved certainly can't afford to--and so "well just pass UBI" is the "just draw the rest of the owl" flavor of not-helping.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  It'll happen as more and more people start protesting such that politicians will have to support UBI, as well as corporations when no one has the money to buy their products. The need is simply not as strong currently as it is in the future. It's the central tenet in Marxist accelerationism theory.
  - eropple 4y ago
    I will concede the theoretical possibility, but, uh...Marxist acceleration theory doesn't have much of a track record.