Copyright is one of the 4 types of intellectual property. Your misguided defense of the individual author strengthens publishing companies instead, since they own the means of production to copy and have the lawyers to litigate such violations.
Also you misunderstand how the technology works. Generative AI does not function by copying the data it was trained on, but by using the trends it noticed in that data to piece together something original. Examine the code of whichever LLM and you will never find any books, pictures, or movies stored within. It’s a sophisticated network of associations and dissociations.
Now you might then argue that these generalized statistics also constitute plagiarism, but consider what that entails. If mimicry is criminal, should it then be illegal for artists to imitate another’s style? Should musicians be able to patent chord progressions and leitmotifs? Should genres be property?
Your stance against AI is boxed within the existing bourgeois framework of creative ownership which I hope you agree is awful. I understand the precarity that this tech creates for artists but expanding IP will empower, not weaken, the companies that exploit them.
You forgot one part in the LTV. When a thing can be created with less labor, all of those things will have less labor value.
If an original gets photocopied 1000x, all of the copies will be worthless, as there was no labor put in. But the copies are indistinguishable from the original, so the original is now also worthless.
Copyright is taking something worthless (copies) and trying to artificially make it worth something, by suppressing people’s ability to share.
Now that LLMs exist, making something that could also be made by a LLM has the same labor value as when someone uses a LLM to create it (very little).
Well done for highlighting the LTV the way you did; it is an excellent examination of the defense against proprietorship. (I was deliberating against commenting because it may feel like ganging up on the relative OP here but I felt an upvote was not enough)
Would you approve of AI if companies bought licenses from the artists in their training data? Is this the underlying issue for you, that capitalists aren’t playing by their own rules? This is a reasonable grievance but it’s hardly communist.
Regarding labor, don’t you want people to work less? Yes the machine takes less manpower than a human. That’s potentially liberatory. Of course under bourgeois rule, this technology is used to suppress the wages of artists. But that’s true for everything, which is why the problem is capitalism itself and why we shouldn’t cede control of this new technology to capitalists.
Also I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I asked those questions to get you to think about how the anti-plagiarism laws you want for AI would manifest in real life. And I said that you’re an advocate for expanding intellectual property because you’re implying that artists should have more protections against having their work copied. When an artist’s work cannot be copied without the right granted to you, then they hold the copyright, a form of IP. This is shortsighted because those who are most able to defend their IPs and who have the most IPs to defend are not solo artists, but corporations. Broaden copyright laws and you’re directly giving power to Disney and the like.
P.S. chill out, damn. You’re being snarky as hell when both me are memorable have been formal with you. I’m not trying to dunk on you and this isn’t reddit.
Also I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I asked those questions to get you to think about how the anti-plagiarism laws you want for AI would manifest in real life.
Making the abstract concrete is always a good dialectial materialist approach. It is how we should often dissect a problem as marxists. For anyone still lurking and interested in further reading:
deleted by creator
Copyright is one of the 4 types of intellectual property. Your misguided defense of the individual author strengthens publishing companies instead, since they own the means of production to copy and have the lawyers to litigate such violations.
Also you misunderstand how the technology works. Generative AI does not function by copying the data it was trained on, but by using the trends it noticed in that data to piece together something original. Examine the code of whichever LLM and you will never find any books, pictures, or movies stored within. It’s a sophisticated network of associations and dissociations.
Now you might then argue that these generalized statistics also constitute plagiarism, but consider what that entails. If mimicry is criminal, should it then be illegal for artists to imitate another’s style? Should musicians be able to patent chord progressions and leitmotifs? Should genres be property?
Your stance against AI is boxed within the existing bourgeois framework of creative ownership which I hope you agree is awful. I understand the precarity that this tech creates for artists but expanding IP will empower, not weaken, the companies that exploit them.
deleted by creator
You forgot one part in the LTV. When a thing can be created with less labor, all of those things will have less labor value.
If an original gets photocopied 1000x, all of the copies will be worthless, as there was no labor put in. But the copies are indistinguishable from the original, so the original is now also worthless.
Copyright is taking something worthless (copies) and trying to artificially make it worth something, by suppressing people’s ability to share.
Now that LLMs exist, making something that could also be made by a LLM has the same labor value as when someone uses a LLM to create it (very little).
Well done for highlighting the LTV the way you did; it is an excellent examination of the defense against proprietorship. (I was deliberating against commenting because it may feel like ganging up on the relative OP here but I felt an upvote was not enough)
Would you approve of AI if companies bought licenses from the artists in their training data? Is this the underlying issue for you, that capitalists aren’t playing by their own rules? This is a reasonable grievance but it’s hardly communist.
Regarding labor, don’t you want people to work less? Yes the machine takes less manpower than a human. That’s potentially liberatory. Of course under bourgeois rule, this technology is used to suppress the wages of artists. But that’s true for everything, which is why the problem is capitalism itself and why we shouldn’t cede control of this new technology to capitalists.
Also I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I asked those questions to get you to think about how the anti-plagiarism laws you want for AI would manifest in real life. And I said that you’re an advocate for expanding intellectual property because you’re implying that artists should have more protections against having their work copied. When an artist’s work cannot be copied without the right granted to you, then they hold the copyright, a form of IP. This is shortsighted because those who are most able to defend their IPs and who have the most IPs to defend are not solo artists, but corporations. Broaden copyright laws and you’re directly giving power to Disney and the like.
P.S. chill out, damn. You’re being snarky as hell when both me are memorable have been formal with you. I’m not trying to dunk on you and this isn’t reddit.
Making the abstract concrete is always a good dialectial materialist approach. It is how we should often dissect a problem as marxists. For anyone still lurking and interested in further reading:
https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/
https://polclarissou.com/boudoir/archive.html
Yet another red sails banger. 🔥🔥🔥