S3rios

I don’t disagree that the line is blurry, I just don’t think it’s nonexistent

I think it absolutely is something artists care about, especially when that exposure is going to someone else. Someone else putting their name on something I made feels bad

It's saying to them that you don't think their labor was worth giving recognition to. People generally like it when what they do is recognized in some way, and I don't think that's just a product of the property relation.

I think plagiarism is bad for more than just its harm to the people being plagiarized as well. I think it inhibits informational flow to plagiarize, I think it’s dishonest, I think it leads to sloppy work, etc.

I mean I think all else being equal it’s bad to make people feel bad. It’s not ALWAYS bad but I see no compelling reason to think that there is some good served by plagiarism that outweighs the disrespect inherent in it, not to mention that there are lots of other ways in which it’s bad.

What is “this situation”?

…trying to reconstruct their belief system so that you can understand WHY they believe that. “This person is dumb in this screenshot” is worthless if you can’t explain the conditions that led to that statement being made, which requires more specific apprehension of their overall output.

How do you become alerted to new things they say if you’re not following them? Seems more efficient to just follow them instead of constantly checking their page.
Also, studying a bad person isn’t as simple as just finding dumb things they say and calling it a day. What’s far more interesting is…

OpenAI accused deepseek of using ChatGPT in its training somehow, and while I don’t know if that’s true, it shows that these companies are in fact worried about IP. They will circumvent it when it benefits them, but they still rely on it.

But it is literally still a different image. Like if you had used that image instead of the protected one in the dataset, it would be the exact same. So in other words it isn’t strictly determined by the data like you said it was.

How do you think these companies would survive without IP? Do you think Adobe, Disney, or most tech startups can do what they do if they don’t have patent protections or own any copyright?

Many in the petit bourgeois are just trying to survive. Mom and pop shops run on very slim margins. It doesn’t change their class position; in this case, the expansion of private property rights.

Leftists have opposed copyright for a long time.

My overall point is made in the video: practically, the *expansion* of copyright in this case would not fix the problem of displacement and consolidate power in the hands of bad actors. I believe training should be considered fair use (with that caveat that outputs CAN be infringement in specific

My reading of what you said is that the infringing images can be replaced with images that encode the same structure and you will get the same model out the other end. Is that a misinterpretation?

The crypto scene was never populated by artists. People who sell NFTs as an investment and AI bros who hype the tech aren’t artists, though they are the bourgeoisie. I’m talking about the PETIT bourgeois artists.

So in other words, my friend was right, it’s not about the images themselves but the structures.

Copyright is inherently in favor of large companies, the same way that private property is inherently in favor of the bourgeois. Sometimes private property will protect you (say your house is burgled) but the net effect is negative.

Even when “evenly enforced” copyright is bad. It’s bad for artists especially, who lose control of their work. The people who benefit most from IP are large corporations and petit bourgeois artists who are in a position to negotiation for their rights.

If it produces the same result without any of the original training data does that not lend support to the claim made by my friend that the specific training data isn’t that important for the weights?

…scope of copyright will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. Indeed, it could easily make it worse, as Alex explained.

…spread around. It will likely only get worse too, which I find extremely depressing.
The difference is that I can recognize when the cure is worse than the disease. Copyright and IP more generally have been a blight on society far longer than genAI and I am wholly unconvinced that expanding the…

I actually hate chatbots btw, I think the write poorly, I hate that people use them instead of doing real research, I hate that every student just uses it instead of learning. I also think that image generators have a net negative effect on the world because of all the bullshit misinfo that gets…

To be clear, I was referring to the data laundering thing.

The fact that you think something like this would be written by a chatbot shows how little you actually understand them. Chatbots don’t make obvious spelling errors. I’m not going to talk to you if you’re just going to assume I’m a liar.

I’m unclear on what you mean by this. Can you link an example of this?

Why is ‘friend’ in scare quotes? Do you think I’m lying?

I decided to ask a friend of mine who knows way more about what he’s talking about than I do. This is what he said.

It’s not a “mixture” of the training data. That’s just wrong. It isn’t combining things.

The reason this one in particular showed up is because it was in a lot of news articles.