"thou shalt not automate" carl max

@charlotte fellas is it right-wing to abolish copyright

@Flaky i heart reproducing the current socioeconomic relations of the current society

@charlotte @Flaky

so copyright hasn’t been abolished, nor will it be abolished, it’s just that the laws do not apply to capitalists, as usual

@ug @Flaky the laws do apply to everyone. anthropic will pay their fine just fine. it's just capex on training to them, nothing more and nothing else

@ug @Flaky it's meaningless to fight for enforcement of copyright when it's literally already being enforced exactly as it was designed. nothing is broken lol

@charlotte @ug @Flaky fair use was not in the US constitution and therefore was very much not "as designed". a law that can't change to meet new forms of intellectual labor is a broken legal system, and the laws accepted as valid by individuals forms the individual's personal legal system

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but there's absolutely nothing extraordinary happening here. the property owner receives the compensation in the end. nobody's ever promised it's for public benefit

copyright worked exactly as designed, as a system of property on non material goods. whether or not it's a good system, and whether or not intellectual property is even a meaningful concept are two different questions

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky i think the very concept of non-material property is mostly meaningless, and private property relations should be abolished in general, and that artificial intelligence exposes the contractions in them, such as "fair use" as an intentionally extremely limited escape hatch

@charlotte @hipsterelectron @Flaky

yeah the concept of intellectual property is bullshit there’s no controversy,

What is contentious I think is that the AI companies are in any way threatening intellectual property as a property relation, or if this is just the case of capitalists being able to ignore laws when it suits them, while they are still imposed on the rest of us.

I think rather we’re seeing quite the opposite, the intensification of the intellectual property regime and the rights of corporations to extend claims of intellectual property indefinitely, like games / movie / tv/ music industry claiming you don’t actually own a physical copy of media, even hardware manufacturers saying you are only leasing hardware etc.

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky the ai companies themselves absolutely do not threaten copyright, i think they fit greatly in the current system, there's a reason why openai and anthropic both push to reinforce it and opportunistically cooperate with IP holders (see the openai disney deal). but ai as a technology in general does not, which is why you also see them making absolutely sure that the production and inference of ai systems is regulated and limited to a handful of large domestic corporates

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky a technology that allows anybody to produce any amount of any immaterial product makes the product completely meaningless

@charlotte @ug @Flaky also mentioned in hachette vs IA was the clause in the transformative fair use multi-factor balancing test in which the existence of a secondary market for the books scanned by the IA (which certainly exists since the same copyright covers the physical and ebook versions) was basically the single major factor that made the IA's farcical little scheme clearly infringing and not covered by fair use

@charlotte @ug @Flaky the reason i keep mentioning it in the context of LLMs is because the LLMs directly marketing their usage as a replacement of the original work they consume for training is the exact reason they are (1) widely considered to be "evil" (2) emphatically infringing and not covered by fair use. i literally do not care about someone using a transformer model as a slower and worse search engine because they don't want to learn about indexing and compression, except that the models not citing their sources directly replaces the originals

@charlotte @ug @Flaky and just btw intellectual "property" is directly a function of the ability to reassign rights away from the creator. if you can't transfer it then it's not property. getting played by capitalists calling a human right "property" and letting them define your terms is basic bitch behavior. bodily autonomy is a human right even if the matrix wants to use your body for energy

@charlotte @hipsterelectron @Flaky

i agree with the last bit, and perhaps “valueless” in the marxian sense, havn’t no labor value or exchange value, even in a marginal utility sense, art is typically valued in terms of novelty and skill involved, so the product of LLM’s is worthless in every sense of the word ( unreliable etc. )

i’m not sure if a company that produces anti-value is long for this world

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky excuse my mangling of terms, im not exactly proofreading myself right now lol

@charlotte @hipsterelectron @Flaky

considering anthropic downloaded *everything on the internet obviously the vast majority of copyright holders in the world are not being compensated

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky they can sue to the best of their abilities, whether or not their abilities are enough to sue anthropic is another question

@charlotte @ug @Flaky transformative fair use in US law does in fact very specifically describe "public benefit" as a component of the multi-factor balancing test. the two hachette vs IA decisions are very well written and approachable on this matter, and very specifically describe the ebook lending system as heinous and not something the court has the power to fix. that's a flaw with the legislative and court system to support your point

@charlotte @ug @Flaky furthermore i see it as a fundamental failure that a patent or copyright can be transferred from the creator, and that's not actually at all part of the original conception of copyright either. it is also absolutely something that can be legislated, and banning it is quite literally a component of my insane software license nobody will use. i don't think i disagree with your analysis until you raise the spectre of "as designed". i think that's nihilist is all

@charlotte @ug @Flaky a corporation which did not produce the labor cannot receive the protections assigned to labor, and moreover the concept of paying for the copyright or patent actually removes a human right assigned to the laborer, which i believe is facially contradictory to any system of human rights. i will absolutely die before i get anyone else to agree on this because as we all agree the colonialist slaver legal system of the US is fucked and working as designed to stimy human rights

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky just like a corporation doesn't produce the labor on the factory floor, the workers do! it's not a novel phenomenon, the fact that the product is immaterial just makes it sound rather absurd, but it's been happening since approximately the black death

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but the fact that results in the alienation of the products of labor from the worker isn't exactly a bug, that's literally the same across any industry under capitalism. it's more visible on the factory floor, but the fact that a large publisher owns the products of their workers and extracts profit out of them (by, say, suing someone creating derivative works without a proper license) isn't a failure, that's the entire design of the system, even if it does result in alienation

@charlotte @Flaky

damn, i mean 1.5 billion is a lot of money for a company that is not profitable and operates entirely on borrowed money https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-copyright-authors-settlement-training-f294266bc79a16ec90d2ddccdf435164

@Flaky @charlotte it's not conservative it is libertarian just like free software. nothing wrong with being libertarian until you try to dictate the behavior of others or refuse to afford people the human rights provisions of a radical society and then expect to still be accepted and not shunned by actual radicals

@charlotte He should have answered: "I'm not a leftist, I'm a communist!" ☭

@charlotte@mastodon.ml we gotta celebrate our differences
shut the sharty down already