What? No it isn’t. Where did I say anything remotely like that?

How dare I be dogmatic about something that is actively ruining my live and not buying the books by people actively furthering the cause of those oligarchs.

Even in your own words, you sound like a drone. Yes, how dare you be dogmatic about anything? How does this situation turn your shitty behaviour into positive behaviour? Explain how you being closed-minded and willingly ignorant helps you or anyone else cope with post-AI life? Explain how it helps you resist AI? You’re being fucking childish.

No one here is telling you not to resist AI. And you STILL can’t metabolize the idea that a dogmatic approach to your goals is counterproductive, and intellectually dishonest. You have a bugaboo, and you’re not going to help anyone under its influence.

After you’ve gone up and down the thread saying how you’ll never listen? Fucking read the book, or just ask an AI if you’re that lazy; why should a human spoon feed it to you?

No, it’s not called theft. It’s called infringement. You don’t own the song, the poem, the story, the character, the image in the photo or the audio in the sample. One cannot own a song. What one has is an exclusive right to exploit a song.

I feel like your, “That’s called theft,” is an attempt to moralize and shame. But that’s only called infringement among those who agree it is, because they agree it is. There is no cosmic law that makes it so and there is really no financial reality that requires it to be so.

It’s not infringement if you use an algorithm that someone else figured out, and somehow software developers all manage. It’s not infringement if I build my house exactly the same as the one you have an architect design, but architects do okay. It’s not infringement when I perform a Jonathan Coulton song for money, and despite putting all his creative output in the Creative Commons, he still has a successful career.

The way things are are ARBITRARY and don’t reflect morality or need. Over time copyright law has become entirely detached from the needs of artists and instead reflects the needs of the capitalists who seek to exploit artists’ output.

That’s not what I said. That site measures the output of the chain. I said we grow more food (ie plants) than humanity can eat. We feed the majority of that food to the livestock we keep that absolutely dwarfs the biomass of all wild animals. That introduces a 90%+ caloric inefficiency. If we just ate the plants, we would have to stop growing so much food, even all our industrial processes don’t demand that much. But capitalism demands instead that we keep growing more food than the year before, and so it demands inefficiencies like animal ag. Any scarcity is entirely engineered. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. It is necessary to maximize investor return.

dogma, got it. and in return, i didn’t read the rest of your comment based on your asinine initial sentence. heavens forbid you should be exposed to ideas you don’t agree with. there’s no way that can enrich you, right??? certainly there’s no way it could help inform what I’m going to generously describe as your activism. best tune it out LA LA LA LA

Software developers, graphics artists, window painters, live musicians, session musicians, photographers and cinematographers, copy writers, florists, chocolatiers, dancers, interior decorators, animators, chefs, composers, and virtually every other kind of artist would still have a job in a world without copyright protection. If your art isn’t being mass produced, it’s not really relevant.

Your anecdote doesn’t trump my anecdote; now we have two anecdotes.

ignore the entire ecosystem of “professionals” who don’t use adobe. like maybe it’s true with your clients or whatever that you have to use adobe, but it’s not a function of you being more “professional” than other people, shove that.

he left over internet points that don’t mean anything or have a practical effect on anything?

These people evaluate things through dogma above all else.

That’s hardly universal. Most working artists don’t get a lot of income from a back library of material, unless you’re one of the last few independent stock photographers. They make income by working.

As you say. Laws don’t exist to shackle the ruling class.

Have you read the book or are you just dismissing the arguments without even considering them?

The propaganda machine really started chugging along after Carney’s election. There’s a million AI-enhanced, “grass root”, hokey, folksy pro-federalist YouTube channels since the moment after the election. I haven’t dug into it yet but I bet this $500K is coming from Carney’s brain-drain war chest targeting American academics.

Wouldn’t necessarily tell you if that known source is AI. So now we have to go through everything by hand anyway.

deleted by creator

Imagine being dead and still giving a shit about this. Move to the light, dude.

She’s doing nothing wrong.

Did I miss something? You said it is a “shitty” argument, but you never state what is wrong with it.