[thankyoufriend]

The difference between GenAI and your examples is a theft component. They stole our data - your data - and used it to build a machine that diverts wealth to the rich. The only equitable way for GenAI to move forward is if we all own a share of it, since it would not exist in its current form without our data. GenAI should be a Universal Basic Asset.

[thedevilslawyer]

Today you can go buy and be an owner in AI by buying the AI company stocks. You are enabled by the system that we have..

[johnnyanmac]

you can, perhaps. I am 2 years laid off and am trying to pay rent. All according to plan, I suppose.

Also, no. I would not invest in this hype bubble. We're definitely getting an AI crash within the next 5-7 yeras, a la the dotcom crash. I prefer safer stocks if I have the choice.

[thankyoufriend]

You realize that not everybody has the means to invest in stocks, right? Artists are so commonly poor, that there's even a trope called the "starving artist." I have noticed a distinct lack of empathy in the broader discussion about GenAI's impact on the working class. The argument is always made that this isn't new, that people have to retrain when new technology displaces them. Ok, sure. But the speed of this displacement is very new and it happened basically overnight. How do you expect these displaced people to sustain themselves during the retraining period? There's only so many McJobs, and it's not as easy as you think to get one right now. I just watched someone with a college degree apply to everything for 2 months before landing one. There's also the deeply-held belief that people are only valuable if they work, which I think many of us subconsciously believe, but that's pretty messed up if you reflect on it and follow it to its logical conclusion.

There's also the principle of the matter that we shouldn't have to pay for a share of something that was built using our collective unpaid labor/property without our consent.

[thedevilslawyer]

In a capitalist system - there's no other answer.

In a more socialist context, UBI is an answer.

In a more communist context, taking over all labs for the people is an answer.

In a dictatorial context, banning AI is an answer.

What are you recommending?

[johnnyanmac]

I'll take socialism.

More subtly, I'll modity the dictorial context to require payment to any sources an AI uses, and strong enforcement of infringements on AI. The core problem with capitalistic society is that money tends to bubble up to the top and then stay there. The goal of regulation should partly be to make sure that money is incentivized to be not stay up top in stocks.

[bruce511]

I appreciate the idealism but your argument has some flaws.

Firstly the "theft component" isn't exactly new. There have always been rich and poor.

Secondly everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. The Beatles were influenced by the works of others. Paul and John learned to write by mimicking other writers.

That code you right is the pinicle of endless work dine by others. By Ada Lovelace, and Charles Babbage, and Alan Turing and Brian Kernigan and Denis Ritchie and Doug Englebart and thousands and thousands more.

By your logic the entire output of all industries for all foreseeable generations should be universally owned. [1]

But that's not the direction we have built society on. Rather society has evolved in the US to reward those who create value out of the common space. The oil in Texas doesn't belong to all Texans, it doesn't belong to the pump maker, it belongs to the company that pumps the oil.

Equally there's no such thing as 'your data'. It's your choice to publish or not. Information cannot be 'owned'. Works can be copyrighted, but frankly you have a bigger argument on that front going after Google (and Google Books, not to mention the Internet Archive) than AI. AI may train on data you produced, but it does not copy it.

[1] I'm actually for a basic income model, we don't need everyone working all day like it's 1900 anymore. That means more taxes on companies and the ultra wealthy. Apparently voters disagree as they continue to vote for people who prefer the opposite.

[sirwhinesalot]

I think your last point is very reductionist. Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win. A diverse parlament results in paralysis and the fall of government (happened in my home country multiple times).

The two parties that end up viable tend to be financed quite heavily by said wealthy, including being proped by the media said wealthy control.

The more right wing side will promise tax cuts (also for the poor that don't seem to materialize) while the more left wing side will promise to tax the rich (but in an easily dodgeable way that only ends up affecting the middle class).

Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one. And I think the wealthy backers wanted it that way.

[bruce511]

Im not sure why you are being downvoted. You make a reasonable argument.

I would contest some of your points though.

Firstly, not every country votes, not all that vote have 2 viable parties, so that's a flaw in your argument.

Equally most elections produce a winner. That winner can, and does, get stuff done. The US is paralyzed because it takes 60% to win the senate, which hasn't happened for a while. So US elections are set up so "no one wins". Which of course leads to overreach etc that we're seeing currently.

There's a danger when living inside a system that you assume everywhere else is the same. There's a danger when you live in a system that heavily propagandizes its own superiority, that you start to feel like everywhere else is worse.

If we are the best, and this system is the best, and it's terrible, then clearly all hope is lost.

But what I maybe, just maybe, all those things you absolutely, positively, know to be true, are not true? Is that even worth thinking about?

[sirwhinesalot]

Just to be clear, I'm not a US citizen.

But I know people whose preference would be something like Ron Paul > Bernie Sanders > Trump > Kamala, which might sound utterly bizarre until you realize that there are multiple factors at play and "we want tax cuts for the rich" is not one of them.

[bruce511]

When you vote for a guy who plans to raise prices, when you vote for a guy who already tried to remove Healthcare, when you vote for a guy who gives tax breaks to the rich, when you vote for a guy who is a grifter, then don't complain when you get what you voted for.

People are welcome to whatever preference they like. Democracy let's them choose. But US democracy is deliberately planned to prefer the "no one wins" scenario. That's not the democracy most of the world uses.

[johnnyanmac]

> Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win.

Not necessarily. That's a result of first past the post, not of voting in general. ranked choice voting solves a lot of this extremism 2 party system. The dominant parties need to at least pretend to appel enough to moderatism that a 3rd party isn't outvoting both of them.

>Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one.

So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.

[sirwhinesalot]

> Not necessarily. That's a result of first past the post, not of voting in general. ranked choice voting solves a lot of this extremism 2 party system. The dominant parties need to at least pretend to appel enough to moderatism that a 3rd party isn't outvoting both of them.

Yup, we really need to fix this problem in many countries. Ranked choice is a great idea that should be pushed for.

> So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.

That was my perception of it at least. I'm not a US citizen. Job market might have been a big one but even that is partially social as a rejection of globalism.

[thankyoufriend]

The newness or novelty of thievery isn't relevant to whether it's thievery or not.

The difference is that, for better or worse, our society chose to follow the model that artists own the rights to their work. That work was used for commercial purposes without the consent of the artists. Therefore it's theft.

I actually do believe all industries should be worker owned because the capitalists have proven they can't be trusted as moral and ethical stewards, but I'm specifically talking about GenAI here.

I think it's disingenuous to say that people have a choice to publish data or not in an economic system that requires them to publish or produce in order to survive. If an artist doesn't produce goods, then they aren't getting paid.

Also this is kind of a pedantic rebuttal but the GenAI software technically does first have to copy the data to then train on it :) But seriously, it can be prompted to reproduce copyrighted works and I don't think the rights holders particularly care how that happens, rather that it can and does happen at all.

[CuriouslyC]

There isn't any more theft in this than in artists copying the styles and techniques of popular artists to improve their craft.

This is 100% just the mechanization of a cultural refinement process that has been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I agree with you regarding how the bounty of GenAI is distributed. The value of these GenAI systems is derived far more from the culture they consume than the craft involved in building them. The problem isn't theft of data, but a capitalist culture that normalizes distribution of benefit in society towards those that are already well off. If the income of those billionaires and the profits of their corporations were more equitably taxed, it would solve a larger class of problems, of which this problem is an instance.

[thankyoufriend]

I disagree that artists copying styles is theft. Tracing or lifting exact elements without materially modifying them, sure, but studying and translating another artist's style takes effort and intent. I agree with your overall point of wealth distribution but I don't think that excuses the data theft component of GenAI. It would still matter morally and ethically even if the financial aspect of it was solved. It's about consent.

[johnnyanmac]

>Than in artists copying the styles and techniques of popular artists to improve their craft.

We have not achieved GAI yet, so comparing the human mind to what's ultimately a robotic database is one ultimately made on a flimsy premise. AI isn't generating a style anymore than a user bashing 3 templates together.

Even when we hit GAI, we have different issues. a brain can't perfectly recite a song they hear. It will not objectively interpret the same soundwaves from brain to brain. It will not react the same way from brain to brain due to different experiences and perspectives. What GAI develops into may or may not take all these into account.

>If the income of those billionaires and the profits of their corporations were more equitably taxed, it would solve a larger class of problems, of which this problem is an instance.

Sure. We can also make sure they pay the artists being copied frmo while we tax them more too. Let's not dismiss theft by casting off the theft as magic. This isn't Now you see me...