4 ms·

I sincerely think you (in the thought experiment) sounds like an incredible hero. Libraries are awesome and great for reducing inequality, using ads to suppor

by cwkoss 3y ago

I sincerely think you (in the thought experiment) sounds like an incredible hero. Libraries are awesome and great for reducing inequality, using ads to support that cause and also funneling cash to UBI initiatives? Even better

caconym_ 3y ago
UBI is great! But taking away artists' livelihoods and justifying it with an uncertain promise of UBI years or (far more likely) decades in the future is (hypothetically) a particularly malignant example of putting the cart before the horse. My observation of the vast majority of people who think intellectual property law is moral anathema to some idealized notion of "freedom" is that they either know nothing about making art themselves, or at the very least they are dilettantes who don't rely on it for any substantial portion of their livelihood. And, as it turns out, the latter group very rarely produce anything of note. Why is that? Because making interesting art is hard—just making art the average person would be willing to spend more than a second or two thinking about is hard enough, let alone art they'd be willing to pay for. It's hard, and it takes time and incredible effort and focus. By taking (in whatever sense) an artist's work for less than it's worth, you're damaging their ability to extract value from their time investment in art, and so forcing them to choose between their artistic endeavors and other profitless aspects of their lives (e.g. their families). Even if you think that's your right (which I absolutely, categorically disagree with), your theft will have a very real effect of stunting young artists' development and reducing their output, and therefore cultural impact, in aggregate. The sort of (frankly) idiots who think AI art is "giving power back to the people", or whatever, probably don't care about that because they don't understand art, or its impact on people and culture, at all. All I can say to them is that they have an incredibly juvenile outlook on the whole subject, and that instead of whining about artists gatekeeping art they should spend $10 on a pad of paper and a box of pencils, or $0 on a Google Doc, and go make some fucking art for themselves. Nobody's stopping them, and if they put in enough work maybe they'll start to understand some things. Or, if you think UBI fixes everything, go ahead and start sending out checks (with a robust guarantee that they will keep coming). I'm sure that will change the tenor of the conversation.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Or, if you think UBI fixes everything, go ahead and start sending out checks (with a robust guarantee that they will keep coming). I'm sure that will change the tenor of the conversation. So far as I can tell, the capacity to do that is called "communism". Specifically "fully automated luxury communism". Why? Because governments are the only entities capable of making such a robust guarantee, and they can only do it without hyperinflation if they own the means of production… which in this case would be the AI. Now, convincing a government to take an AI into public ownership and use its economic productivity to fund a UBI, that's going to be hard work, and will need evidence to show which of the many options within this very ill-defined and barely researched topic will work vs. which are mere wishful thinking. This research is what's currently being funded by the actual entity you're most visibly upset with (OpenAI). And that research may well also determine the answer is "no", at which point we have to come up with something else. Saying "if you want that why don't you fund it yourself?" was a retort against government funded pensions back in the Victorian era, which I mention because pensions are an age-gated UBI[0]. It's never sufficient to find volunteers for stuff of this scale in a democracy, because "sufficient" is on the same scale as becoming the government and changing the laws. [0] thus not literally universal, but that's always going to be a sticking point — one open question is if "UBI" should apply to just "all adults" or be the same rate also for minors
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    You are rationalizing an unsupported prior ("OpenAI and its ilk are right to keep doing what they're doing") with a science fiction premise in which what they're doing is a clear path to so-called "fully automated luxury gay space communism". I don't find this kind of thinking to be particularly well-founded in reality, especially when it's used as a justification for causing harm.

by cwkoss 3y ago

caconym_ 3y ago

UBI is great! But taking away artists' livelihoods and justifying it with an uncertain promise of UBI years or (far more likely) decades in the future is (hypothetically) a particularly malignant example of putting the cart before the horse. My observation of the vast majority of people who think intellectual property law is moral anathema to some idealized notion of "freedom" is that they either know nothing about making art themselves, or at the very least they are dilettantes who don't rely on it for any substantial portion of their livelihood. And, as it turns out, the latter group very rarely produce anything of note. Why is that? Because making interesting art is hard—just making art the average person would be willing to spend more than a second or two thinking about is hard enough, let alone art they'd be willing to pay for. It's hard, and it takes time and incredible effort and focus. By taking (in whatever sense) an artist's work for less than it's worth, you're damaging their ability to extract value from their time investment in art, and so forcing them to choose between their artistic endeavors and other profitless aspects of their lives (e.g. their families). Even if you think that's your right (which I absolutely, categorically disagree with), your theft will have a very real effect of stunting young artists' development and reducing their output, and therefore cultural impact, in aggregate. The sort of (frankly) idiots who think AI art is "giving power back to the people", or whatever, probably don't care about that because they don't understand art, or its impact on people and culture, at all. All I can say to them is that they have an incredibly juvenile outlook on the whole subject, and that instead of whining about artists gatekeeping art they should spend $10 on a pad of paper and a box of pencils, or $0 on a Google Doc, and go make some fucking art for themselves. Nobody's stopping them, and if they put in enough work maybe they'll start to understand some things. Or, if you think UBI fixes everything, go ahead and start sending out checks (with a robust guarantee that they will keep coming). I'm sure that will change the tenor of the conversation.

ben_w 3y ago
> Or, if you think UBI fixes everything, go ahead and start sending out checks (with a robust guarantee that they will keep coming). I'm sure that will change the tenor of the conversation. So far as I can tell, the capacity to do that is called "communism". Specifically "fully automated luxury communism". Why? Because governments are the only entities capable of making such a robust guarantee, and they can only do it without hyperinflation if they own the means of production… which in this case would be the AI. Now, convincing a government to take an AI into public ownership and use its economic productivity to fund a UBI, that's going to be hard work, and will need evidence to show which of the many options within this very ill-defined and barely researched topic will work vs. which are mere wishful thinking. This research is what's currently being funded by the actual entity you're most visibly upset with (OpenAI). And that research may well also determine the answer is "no", at which point we have to come up with something else. Saying "if you want that why don't you fund it yourself?" was a retort against government funded pensions back in the Victorian era, which I mention because pensions are an age-gated UBI[0]. It's never sufficient to find volunteers for stuff of this scale in a democracy, because "sufficient" is on the same scale as becoming the government and changing the laws. [0] thus not literally universal, but that's always going to be a sticking point — one open question is if "UBI" should apply to just "all adults" or be the same rate also for minors
- caconym_ 3y ago
  You are rationalizing an unsupported prior ("OpenAI and its ilk are right to keep doing what they're doing") with a science fiction premise in which what they're doing is a clear path to so-called "fully automated luxury gay space communism". I don't find this kind of thinking to be particularly well-founded in reality, especially when it's used as a justification for causing harm.