the anti-AI movement is too pro-copyright

@eloy interesting take.

@eloy the pro ai movement is too pro growth

@eloy some of it is

@eloy Copyright isn't a bad thing. It is bad now as monopolies of companies license artists work to themselves, so they have to share less of the profit with the artists.

@eloy the anti-AI movement is too pro-copyright when discussing ethics, but remember the AI companies exploit copyright enforcement to their advantage while profiting off copyright infringement at unprecedented scale. it makes no sense as a point against individuals’ use of those tools though.

@eloy@hsnl.social I agree and an extent. On the one hand I don’t think copyright should be so far reaching that you can’t use publically available data for anything (I’m think Google vs news outlets in Spain). On the other hand I think using copyrighted works and building systems with them that conceptually replace the original authors is highly immoral.

@eloy I don’t see the link with that. My hate for AI doesn’t have anything to do with copyright. I couldn’t care any less about that. My hate for AI comes from the fact that AI is ruining literally everything, and the worst part is that it doesn’t even work as advertised. Why do I have to basically forfeit all my skills and knowledge to a stupid machine that is only good at pattern recognition?

@mkljczk @eloy I think many in the anti-AI movement in the West are less “pro-copyright” and more “pro-copyright being applied equally to poor artists and billionaire slop lords”, which, as it stands, appears to very much not be the case

@asie @mkljczk @eloy that is still a subset of pro-copyright

“you cant do [thing] because copyright” is an argument that legitimizes copyright as a side effect

@eloy Copyright should be abolished, but as long as it exists and is enforced against normal people, it should also be enforced against AI companies.

@eloy

I’ve written about this before
https://transfem.social/notes/ag802qtudvi30g0n
https://transfem.social/notes/ag802qtudvi30g0n

@enigmatico @eloy
Yeah, you have fine reasons for hating AI.
But a lot of people in the Discourse will very much focus on the copyright violation as one of if not the primary issue with AI.

As far as I understand it, OPs point is not a condemnation of opposition to AI in general, but pointing out a worrying tendency amongst the opposition to invoke the oppressive copyright system as an argument against AI.

@flesh @eloy I never said the op was against or in favor of anything. I just said that I don’t see the link between hating AI and being in favor or against copyright.

There are legitimate concerns about AI that go beyond copyright.

@jwrm22 @eloy No, not really.
Companies having the rights to the work instead of artists is part of the exploitation of the current system, but the intellectual property construct is itself exploitative and would continue to do so, no matter what private entity gets the deed.

@enigmatico @eloy
I don’t think an exclusive causal link was implied, no.
There are many good reasons to oppose AI.
The point is that there is an unfortunate correlation between people presenting anti-AI arguments and implicitly including pro-copyright talking points.

@eloy

Real, seeing A”I” companies take an L because of copyright is like “Heartwarming: The worst people you know are fighting.”

@flesh @eloy Because people cares about pointless details. It’s like the war in Iran. People opposes it because oil prices are surgin. Never mind all the people who dies and the environmental impact of the war which are far stronger reasons to oppose that or any war. People opposes AI because copyright issues, and because it takes jobs, and because of the RAM sortage. Who cares about trivializing humanity? About losing a purpose in life? Nobody cares about that.

Nobody sees the whole picture of the problem until its present in front of their noses. It happens all the time. I remember when AAA game studios started doing DLCs and I complained in forums about the drop in quality, about 15 years ago, and people roasted me for complaining about it. “We’re just workers who has to fight to find a job, we don’t care about that stuff, its just entertainment” someone told me. 15 years later it turns out I was right and people is now complaining about it as well, but now its to late. Well, fuck them.

It’s going to be the same story with AI. People mumbles about pointless stuff that makes little to no difference. Laws can be modified. Jobs can be repurposed. RAM production can be expanded. But nothing can fix the fact that a clanker with a machine managed to steal their opportunity to do something.

@LunaDragofelis @eloy

But what does “enforcing” it against AI companies look like?

Governments say you are legally required to have a Google account.

Having a Google account requires you to agree to the terms of service. Google can say in the ToS “you give us the right to train an AI on everything you own.” What, then, is the grounds to use copyright to stop Google from using AI?

The closest you could come would be passing a law saying “terms of service agreements cannot ask you to give permission to train an AI,” but if you are going to go through the trouble of passing a new law just to regulate LLMs, it would be better to just ban LLMs outright instead of trying to force it into a copyright framework.

(This is ignoring the issue of whether “training” an LLM is itself a copyright infringement at all, which would require blowing up precedents.)

@2something @LunaDragofelis ... where are you that you legally have to have a google account #lang_En

@LunaDragofelis @eloy

unfortunately the way people are doing that is by drafting things like the "NO FAKES ACT" which gives companies, 5 of which own 80% of all IP rights, the right to copyright the style of something. And other such acts being proposed.

That's actively bad. we need labor laws, unionization and strong enforcement of those labor laws, not more ways for copyright holders to fuck us from behind.

@eloy @LunaDragofelis

A lot of concerns about AI and copyright are already illegal under other acts OR would be better served by labor laws. Impersonation for example.

@eloy @LunaDragofelis

The copyright system is flawed, and is NOT the answer to our issues with AI.

@enigmatico @flesh @eloy I think the copyright angle of the anti-ai movement comes from the fact that taking someones IP without asking and crunching it into a machine that is theoretically capable of replacing anyone whose material was ingested feels very much illegal in terms of copyright.

I assume this angle is also largely pushed by self-employed drawing artists who stand to lose the most of their customer base to a machine that can cheaply replicate stuff in a way where it may be a convincing or good-enough copy of the original skills, making a purchase of a commission not worth it for customers who just want a pretty picture and aren't dedicated to art itself.

Additionally, I assume artists who are employed or will be employed may also have a luddite-like opposition to AI as it may undercut their position as an employee, tho it seems AI has not been replacing humans in large media productions so far, where "good enough" is probably not a standard that cuts it, and that are also more involved than single images where AI models are probably better.

@goes2hard @flesh @eloy AI cant replace artists. It’s as simple as that. I don’t know if anyone has noticed it but AI generated images all look the same, you can even tell which model was used from the style alone. Scummy companies will use AI to generate art, thats another story and another problem. Again, another opportunity that has been robbed from the hands of people, reduced to a mere hobby with no incentive or retribution. Not like artists were treated properly in the past, but still… it was something.

We can argue if AI should be accountable for a copyright infraction because its training material includes it or if it produces images in the style of a copyrighted material, but again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

@enigmatico @flesh @eloy
> AI cant replace artists. It’s as simple as that.
genuine question, why do you think this is the case? is it just the stylistic void, or are there more reasons?

@goes2hard @flesh @eloy For the average Joe, it’s just a drawing. Anyone can draw. Therefore, machines can replicate that. But for anyone with enough attention to detail, it’s much deeper than that. Art is a form of expression. Machines lack of any emotions. They don’t understand art, they just try to replicate it. There are infinite ways to express or induce emotions in art, and every individual has their own. It is impossible for a machine to replace that.

For the corporates and the companies who lack of any soul, any drawing is as good as any other drawing. But for humans who have a soul, AI generated images are dull and empty, devoided of any emotions. It can replace jobs, but it cant replace artists.

@eloy @ahrienby nothot take I feel the same

@LunaDragofelis @eloy

Wouldn’t the abolishment of copyright also mean the abolishment of free software?

I believe that without free software licenses forcing companies to disclose modifications they made to free software and allowing users to modify the software, most software products would be even more closed than they already are.

@jcm @eloy in turn however, unauthorized redistribution and reverse engineering would become fully legal.

@ellenor2000 @2something the EU is developing a "age verification" app that uses "integrity" checks that only pass on iOS and Google-approved Android. This app might become mandatory to access any NSFW content on the internet.

@alexia @eloy @LunaDragofelis Copyright has always been a predatory system intended to stop the free spread of derivative art

@ladypretzal @eloy @LunaDragofelis yes based

...tho one step at a time I don't think we're convincing anyone to abolish copyright by tomorrow

@LunaDragofelis @2something ... Right.

Okay.

That sounds like you need to lawyer up. #lang_en