4 ms·

> taking money out of Plato’s descendants’ pockets Yeah, remind me - is it Plato's descendants that people are concerned about here, or is it every single auth

> taking money out of Plato’s descendants’ pockets Yeah, remind me - is it Plato's descendants that people are concerned about here, or is it every single author who had any work in Anna's Archive, any work published online, any work published on github, etc? I think that people are probably upset about the harm to living people who had their work stolen by Meta and other LLM companies - regardless of license, terms of use, or any other attempted protection.

brookst 4mo ago
Sure, that’s the motte / bailey. Easy to point to living, starving writers who suffer grevious harm, in defense of perpetual copyright. Disney and others use literally this exact argument year after year. I’m not even disagreeing. I’m just saying the shift in attitude about copyright in the tech space has been sudden, dramatic, and really funny. Remember “you wouldn’t steal a car”? Today’s anti-AI tech contingent are enthusiastically embracing that false equivalence that we all laughed at 20 years ago.
- toraway 4mo ago
  Having a static, immovable belief system about something like copyright that is unaffected by seismic shifts in the real world also doesn't seem very logical. If like, Disney did a 180 overnight and bought rights from Google to scan every writer's saved work in Docs with some flimsy legal argument then a person saying "wait doesn't copyright actually protect that" would make sense. Even if you were previously upset about them suing schools for using 80 year art.
  - brookst 4mo ago
    Sure. So you’re saying MPAA was right and you’ve come around? Creative works have always been accretive. There had never been a creative work made out of whole cloth, with no debt to any previous work. The fact your opinions about creative works change based on who’s profiting does not change that.

brookst 4mo ago

Sure, that’s the motte / bailey. Easy to point to living, starving writers who suffer grevious harm, in defense of perpetual copyright. Disney and others use literally this exact argument year after year. I’m not even disagreeing. I’m just saying the shift in attitude about copyright in the tech space has been sudden, dramatic, and really funny. Remember “you wouldn’t steal a car”? Today’s anti-AI tech contingent are enthusiastically embracing that false equivalence that we all laughed at 20 years ago.

toraway 4mo ago
Having a static, immovable belief system about something like copyright that is unaffected by seismic shifts in the real world also doesn't seem very logical. If like, Disney did a 180 overnight and bought rights from Google to scan every writer's saved work in Docs with some flimsy legal argument then a person saying "wait doesn't copyright actually protect that" would make sense. Even if you were previously upset about them suing schools for using 80 year art.
- brookst 4mo ago
  Sure. So you’re saying MPAA was right and you’ve come around? Creative works have always been accretive. There had never been a creative work made out of whole cloth, with no debt to any previous work. The fact your opinions about creative works change based on who’s profiting does not change that.