Because generative AI has been built off the backs of everyone, whether they consented or not.
This is covered by fair use, and in any case intellectual property is bullshit.
Because AI companies (Nvidia, Facebook, pick a company) have pirated enough material to keep any individual in jail for life, and yet they have no consequences and can profit off everything.
Legally, downloading stuff illegally is a civil content, so you can’t in fact go to jail for it, only pay fines. Morally, the whole concept of piracy evolved out of government-granted monopolies and was pushed by rich pricks as a way to get richer at the expense of everyone else, so there’s no reason to give it any moral weight.
If generative AI can not be used for commercial purposes, it also cripples the ability to replace artists, writers, etc., with an AI that stole all their work in the first place and is regurgitating it.
“Protecting jobs from competition” is very low on my list of things I want enforced via state violence. Maybe it’s high on yours, but I’d like not to get state violence’d to satisfy your sensibilities thank you very much. Otherwise you can’t complain when, say, conservatives use state violence so enforce their sensibilities on you.
Take the profit out of it, and we can all (to some degree) benefit from it. Take the profit out of it, and stop them from hoarding and destroying books/knowledge, destroying the environment, destroying your economy.
No matter how much pirates try to push the point by repeating it, I have never agreed with the sentiment that intellectual property is bullshit. Has it been co-opted by large businesses to stifle forward movement? Yes. Does it still have a place that can protect genuine creators? Also yes.
But it’s very hard to convince people of this position if they’ve never had the experience of investing (equivalent of) thousands of personal dollars or man-hours into a work where they had some investment, monetary or emotional, in its success.
The universal anti-state-violence argument is also so circular. Do we believe state cops should murder black people? Obviously not. Who do we think should stop them? How about internal affairs peacekeepers and court-owned marshalls. Oh, so now we’re back to promoting state sponsored violence against preferred targets?
This is covered by fair use, and in any case intellectual property is bullshit.
Legally, downloading stuff illegally is a civil content, so you can’t in fact go to jail for it, only pay fines. Morally, the whole concept of piracy evolved out of government-granted monopolies and was pushed by rich pricks as a way to get richer at the expense of everyone else, so there’s no reason to give it any moral weight.
“Protecting jobs from competition” is very low on my list of things I want enforced via state violence. Maybe it’s high on yours, but I’d like not to get state violence’d to satisfy your sensibilities thank you very much. Otherwise you can’t complain when, say, conservatives use state violence so enforce their sensibilities on you.
Uh… what? What’s your reasoning there?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
No matter how much pirates try to push the point by repeating it, I have never agreed with the sentiment that intellectual property is bullshit. Has it been co-opted by large businesses to stifle forward movement? Yes. Does it still have a place that can protect genuine creators? Also yes.
But it’s very hard to convince people of this position if they’ve never had the experience of investing (equivalent of) thousands of personal dollars or man-hours into a work where they had some investment, monetary or emotional, in its success.
The universal anti-state-violence argument is also so circular. Do we believe state cops should murder black people? Obviously not. Who do we think should stop them? How about internal affairs peacekeepers and court-owned marshalls. Oh, so now we’re back to promoting state sponsored violence against preferred targets?