[brendoelfrendo]

This is starting to get pretty circular. The AI was trained on copyrighted data, so we can make a hypothesis that it would not exist - or would exist in a diminished state - without the copyright infringement. Now, the AI is being used to flood AI bookstores with cheaply produced books, many of which are bad, but are still competing against human authors.

[JohnHaugeland]

the problem with how circular the argument is is that the essence of there being an actual problem is being taken for granted

it's not clear that detriments actually exist, and the benefits are clear

[roguecoder]

The benefits are not clear: why should an "author" who doesn't want to bother writing a book of their own get to steal the words of people who aren't lazy slackers?

[satvikpendem]

It's as much stealing as piracy is stealing, ie none at all. If you disagree, you and I (along with probably many others in this thread) have a fundamental axiomatic incompatibility that no amount of discussion can resolve.

[roguecoder]

It is not theft in the property sense, but it is theft of labor.

If a company interviewed me, had me solve a problem, didn't hire me or pay me in any way and then used the code I wrote in their production software, that would be theft.

That is the equivalent of what authors claiming they wrote AI books are doing. That they've fooled themselves into thinking the computer "wrote" the book, erasing all the humans whose labor they've appropriated, in my opinion makes it worse, not better. They are lying to the reader and themselves, and both are bad.

[consteval]

Stealing is not the right word perhaps, but it is bad, and this should be obvious. Because if you take the limit of these arguments as they approach infinity, it all falls apart.

For piracy, take switch games. Okay, pirating Mario isn't stealing. Suppose everyone pirates Mario. Then there's no reason to buy Mario. Then Nintendo files bankruptcy. Then some people go hungry, maybe a few die. Then you don't have a switch anymore. Then there's no more Mario games left to pirate.

If something is OK if only very, very few people do it, then it's probably not good at all. Everyone recycling? Good! Everyone reducing their beef consumption? Good! ... everyone pirating...? Society collapses and we all die, and I'm only being a tad hyperbolic.

In a vacuum making an AI book is whatever. In the context of humanity and pushing this to it's limits, we can't even begin to comprehend the consequences. I'm talking crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you haven't thought long enough and creatively enough.

[satvikpendem]

> Because if you take the limit of these arguments as they approach infinity, it all falls apart.

Not everyone is a Kantian, who has the moral philsophy you are talking about, the categorical imperative. See this [0] for a list of criticisms to said philosophy.

> In a vacuum making an AI book is whatever. In the context of humanity and pushing this to it's limits, we can't even begin to comprehend the consequences. I'm talking crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you haven't thought long enough and creatively enough.

Not really a valid argument, again it's circular in reasoning with a lot of empty claims with no actual reasoning, why exactly is it bad? Just saying "you haven't thought long enough and creatively enough" does not cut it in any serious discussion, the burden of substantiating your own claim is on you, not the reader, because (to take your own Kantian argument) anyone you've debating could simply terminate the conversation by accusing you of not thinking about the problem deep enough, meaning that no one actually learns anything at all when everyone is shifting the burden of proof to everyone else.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Critici...

[consteval]

> Not really a valid argument

It is, because the quote you quoted is in reference to what I said above.

I explained real consequences of pirating. Companies have gone under, individuals have been driven to suicide. This HAS happened.

It's logically consistent that if we do that, but increase the scale, then the harm will be proportionally increased.

You might disagree. Personally, I don't understand how. Really, I don't. My fundamental understanding of humanity is that each innovation will be pushed to it's limits. To make the most money, to do it as fast as possible, and in turn to harm the most people, if it is harmful. It is not in the nature of humanity to do something half-way when there's no friction to doing more.

This reality of humanity permeates our culture and societies. That's why the US government has checks and balances. Could the US government remain a democracy without them? Of course. We may have an infinite stream of benevolent leaders.

From my perspective, that is naive. And, certainly, the founding fathers agreed with me. That is one example - but look around you, and you will see this mentality permeates everything we do as a species.

[JohnHaugeland]

> Stealing is not the right word perhaps, but it is bad, and this should be obvious.

Many people say things that they don't like "should be obvious"ly bad. If you can't say why, that's almost always because it actually isn't.

Have a look at almost any human rights push for examples.

.

> For piracy, take switch games.

It's a bad metaphor.

With piracy, someone is taking a thing that was on the market for money, and using it without paying for it. They are selling something that belongs to other people. The creator loses potential income.

Here, nobody is actually doing that. The correct metaphor is a library. A creator is going and using content to learn to do other creation, then creating and selling novel things. The original creators aren't out money at all.

Every time this has gone to court, the courts have calmly explained that for this to be theft, first something has to get stolen.

.

> If something is OK if only very, very few people do it

This is okay no matter how many people do it.

The reason that people feel the need to set up these complex explanatory metaphors based on "well under these circumstances" is that they can't give a straight answer what's bad here. Just talk about who actually gets harmed, in clear unambiguous detail.

Watch how easy it is with real crimes.

Murder is bad because someone dies without wanting to.

Burglary is bad because objects someone owns are taken, because someone loses home safety, and because there's a risk of violence

Fraud is bad because someone gets cheated after being lied to.

Then you try that here. AI is bad because some rich people I don't like got a bunch of content together and trained a piece of software to make new content and even though nobody is having anything taken away from them it's theft, and even though nobody's IP is being abused it's copyright infringement, and even though nobody's losing any money or opportunities this is bad somehow and that should be obvious, and ignore the 60 million people who can now be artists because I saw this guy on twitter who yelled a lot

Like. Be serious

This has been through international courts almost 200 times at this point. This has been through American courts more than 70 times, but we're also bound by all the rest thanks to the Berne conventions.

Every. Single. Court. Case. Has. Said. This. Is. Fine. In. Every. Single. Country.

Zero exceptions. On the entire planet for five years and counting, every single court has said "well no, this is explicitly fine."

Matthew Butterick, the lawyer that got a bunch of Hollywood people led by Sarah Silverman to try to sue over this? The judge didn't just throw out his lawsuit. He threatened to end Butterick's career for lying to the celebrities.

That's the position you're taking right now.

We've had these laws in place since the 1700s, thanks to collage. They've been hard ratified in the United States for 150 years thanks to libraries.

.

> Everyone recycling? Good! Everyone reducing their beef consumption? Good! ... everyone pirating...?

This is just silly. "Recycling is good and eating other things is good, but let's try piracy, and by the way, I'm just sort of asserting this, there's nothing to support any of this."

For the record, the courts have been clear: there is no piracy occurring here. Piracy would be if Meta gave you the book collection.

.

> In the context of humanity and pushing this to it's limits, we can't even begin to comprehend the consequences.

That's nice. This same non-statement is used to push back against medicine, gender theory, nuclear power, yadda yadda.

The human race is not going to stop doing things because you choose to declare it incomprehensible.

.

> I'm talking crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams.

Yeah, we're actually discussing Midjourney, here.

You can't put a description to any of these crimes against humanity. This is just melodrama.

.

> If you don't know what I'm talking about,

I don't, and neither do you.

"I'm talking really big stuff! If you don't know what it is, you didn't think hard enough."

Yeah, sure. Can you give even one credible example of Midjourney committing, and I quote, "crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams?"

Like. You're seriously trying to say that a picture making robot is about to get dragged in front of the Hague?

Sometimes I wonder if anti-AI people even realize how silly they sound to others

[consteval]

> The creator loses potential income

Okay. AI books make books 1 million times faster, let's say. Arbitrary, pick any number.

If I, a consumer, want a book, I am therefore 1 million times more likely to pick an AI book. Finding a "real" book takes insurmountable effort. This is the "needle in a haystack" I mentioned earlier.

The result is obvious - creators look potential money. And yes, it is actually obvious. If it isn't, reread it a few times.

To be perfectly and abundantly clear because I think you're purposefully misunderstanding me - I know AI is not piracy. I know that. It's, like, the second sentence I wrote. I said those words explicitly.

I am arguing that while it is not piracy, the harm it creates it identical in form to piracy. In your words, "creators lose potential income". If that is the standard, you must agree with me.

> how silly they sound to others

I'm not silly, you're just naive and fundamentally misunderstand how our societies work.

Capitalism is founded on one very big assumption. It is the jenga block keeping everything together.

Everyone must work. You don't work, you die. Nobody works, everyone dies.

Up until now, this assumption has been sound. The "edge cases", like children and disabled people, we've been able to bandaid with money we pool from everyone - what you know as taxes.

But consider what happens if this fundamental assumption no longer holds true. Products need consumers as much as consumers need products - it's a circular relationship. To make things you need money, to make money you must sell things, to buy things you must have money, and to have money you must make things. If you outsource the making things, there's no money - period. For anyone. Everyone dies. Or, more likely, the country collapses into a socialist revolution. Depending on what country this is, the level of bloodiness varies.

This has happened in the past already, with much more primitive technologies. FDR, in his capitalist genius, very narrowly prevented the US from falling into the socialist revolution with some aforementioned bandaid solutions - what we call "The New Deal". The scale at which we're talking about now is much larger, and the consequences more drastic. I am not confident another "New Deal" can be constructed, let alone implemented. And, I'm not confident it would prevent the death spiral. Again, we cut it very, very close last time.

[greenie_beans]

shop at a real bookstore, they don't have this problem.