[aeon_ai]

New accounts created to shovel a narrative of neo-luddite nonsense into the discourse without addressing a single point with substantiation.

"IP Theft" is a loaded term that has already been determined to be unfounded in US law.

Alsup stated that models were one of the most transformative uses of content he may ever see in his lifetime, and deemed it fair use.

No matter how you slice it, this technology and capability isn't going away, and that goal post quickly shifts when it's pointed out that "ethically trained" AI gets as much hate as anything else.

[AngryData]

Whats wrong with the original luddites that you would try and use them to disparage modern worker rights advocates? They were right. Automation did reduce their quality of life and destroy their wages, and it is only through the luddites and other worker rights organizations making their demands unignorable that gave workers more modern and fair standards like 40 hour weeks, vacations, safety regulations, and unions.

You know who built the looms that the luddites later broke? The luddites themselves. They were the one building automated looms under promises that they would make more money and have cheaper fabric. Instead what they got was towns suffering in poverty under garbage wages, shitty working conditions with longer hours, and worse quality fabric as the corporate looms penny pinched their fibre and fabric more and more.

If the benefits of automated looms were actually shared with the luddites to start with, maybe their society wouldn't have gone down the toilet and they wouldn't have been so pissed. And today corporations are far more powerful than the capitalists back in the luddite days, both monetarily and legally.

[martin-t]

People should own the product of their work.

It's really that simple, all the inequality, injustice and exploitation that's been happening since the first industrial revolution keeps happening because people who do the work only get paid a fraction of the value they produced and only as long as they keep working while the surplus and ownership goes to people who don't do any work, can be used to make more money which gives them more ownership and is heritable.

BTW, I am really happy whenever I see another person who knows who the luddites really were. The rest are condemned to repeat this shit and we're all worse off because of them.

[auggierose]

> People should own the product of their work.

You do own your work, but you agreed to sell it for a salary. Makes sense, because there is often no tangible "product" you could own otherwise. What should cleaners own?

[martin-t]

I see this fallacy all the time.

Can a 40 year old man have sex with a 12 year old girl if she agrees? What if she's 18? The first is illegal and wrong. The second is legal but most people will tell you it's at least gross. Why? Because of the power differential.

Starting a company takes investment (obviously money but also time spent on administrative tasks, hiring, marketing, etc.). Rich people can just buy companies and get passive income.

Salary negotiations are also unequal - one side has much more information and almost always more time and monetary reserves.[1]

I am tired so i'll cut it short - there's inherent power imbalance in the employer-employee[2] relationship which makes the outcome inherently and unavoidably exploitative.

[0]: They'll often use the word illegal because they have been taught to follow rules but have not been taught about differentiating legality and morality.

[1]: Why do you think you come to the company to the interview instead of them asking to meet you at a restaurant like normal business deals might be discussed? It's so ingrained this is normal that what I said sounds absurd.

[2]: Have you ever thought what those words actually mean? Employees are literally being used, it's right in the name.

[auggierose]

There is no fallacy here. Just answer me this, instead of going on a rant tangent: Who does the cleaning? And what do they get for it?

[martin-t]

They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid.

(There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)

[mauzybwy]

There’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem here bc you’re applying asking how to apply cooperative organization theory to a capitalist organization. Presumably in a largely cooperative economy, the cleaner would be a worker-owner of a cleaning organization that provides cleaning labor to the manufacturing organization in question.

[martin-t]

BTW the company is part of the product. If certain work needs to be done, even if it's low-skill work, it contributes to the function of that company and should give fractional ownership according to amount worked and some coefficient accounting for relative skill.

[auggierose]

Who decides who gets hired and fired at that company? How is the coefficient determined? Are we talking about amount of work, or how much your work has contributed to the bottom line of the company?

I don't see that changing anything. As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation, the rest pretty much follows.

[martin-t]

> How is the coefficient determined?

Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage.

> As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation

And that's why I think work should automatically give ownership by law - and therefore decision making power. See, slavery used to be legal too but then enough people decided it's too exploitative, picked up rifles and changed it. Employment is similar, instead of owning a full person, rich people own the entire economic output for 8 hours a day and instead of flogging, they fire workers they don't want. It's less bad but the same principle with more indirection.

[AngryData]

Co-op businesses seem to not have a problem sharing the profits on less tangible products and services. So I don't see why anyone should retain sole ownership of all profits from a business that they require others to do the work in.

[auggierose]

I don't know how co-op businesses work. I think co-ops are hiring cheap third-party cleaners as well. Co-ops also have CEOs making a lot more than the rest of the "cooperative".

> So I don't see why anyone should retain sole ownership of all profits from a business that they require others to do the work in.

Because they are offering, and there are takers? Nobody is forced to work for your business.

[martin-t]

> Nobody is forced to work for your business.

This is the root of the fallacy - nobody is forced to work for any particular business but everybody is forced to work for some business since 1) starting a new one is more costly than working for an existing one 2) we'd all end up working for 1-person businesses.

It's the same as people claiming they are sovereign citizens. It's a nice ideal but it doesn't work.

[martin-t]

IP was the wrong tool for code from the start, it was just convenient to use because it already existed.

What should be protected is human work (it and natural resources are the only things to which humanity ascribes inherent value, all other value is built on top of those).

LLMs are trained on millions of lifetimes of human work while all the income from them goes to the rich at the top. If you don't see an issue with this, not only do you not care about fairness and justice, you also haven't even gamed out in your head what happens 5 or maybe 15 years down the line.

[Paracompact]

Apologies to the user if they aren't an alt and this is just their genuine first post, but: We really ought to delegitimize the whole "creating alts to post unpopular opinions" trend. I know HN is very privacy-centric, but it just seems wrong to me when someone isn't willing to stake their reputation on (what I charitably assume are) genuinely held controversial opinions.

[bakugo]

That's kind of the point - encouraging people to post genuine thoughts that they otherwise wouldn't because of the fear that they might suffer for it later. Sure, it doesn't always encourage the most well thought-out comments, but raising the bar for new commenters with no/low reputation is how you end up with echo chambers.

[dinkumthinkum]

I think the policy is there for a reason. I think it encourages more free discussion. I don't know if you are upset that there is a way for people to express thoughtful ideas without being bullied for doing wrongthink or havingt he wrong opinions.

[dddgghhbbfblk]

I mean I assume it's a bot comment. It has that LLM stink to it in writing style even without the "new account" signal.