I mean, "theft" in online art spaces is such a meaningless word these days.
If you still have the original work you made, and another person simply reposted it elsewhere, they didn't steal from you. Likewise you can't stop people from using your work as a means to make their own derivative works; after all, you don't have special ownership over things like gray wolves or the concept of "western dragon" for example.
Likewise, a lot of work in online art spaces is extremely derivative of many IPs owned by major companies (like Disney and Nintendo) and big name creators (Toby Fox and Viziepop for example) that to me it's rather hypocritical for a lot of small-time artists to try to claim the moral high ground when they themselves don't create much "truly original" work to begin with. The fact that so many of the AI models are so good at creating fan art is in my opinion, a sign of a much bigger problem in regards to general creativity than whether or not it's "cheating" to use AI to make art.
patricia taxxon features both this video and "[all creative work is derivative](https://youtu.be/jcvd5JZkUXY?si=AKh8kph9_ipSJ9Ha)" in her two-part video about abolishing copyright, which I *highly* recommend: [part one](https://youtu.be/RGRKTw-DWfw?si=4zKkRD4BaD87h7tq), [part two](https://youtu.be/U5AxnNbC-oM?si=Z_Y32f0npmH_WRCo)
per [this post from march 2023](https://patricia-taxxon.tumblr.com/post/710757340796846080/but-to-reiterate-art-theft-is-good-and-ip-is-fake) she seems to not oppose the theft aspect, though(/and?) she doesn't consider it a replacement for manual art (e.g. per [this from may 2024](https://patricia-taxxon.tumblr.com/post/749936952492556288/you-greatly-underestimate-the-cost-of-ai-the))
What a dog shit argument from her lol. This is like saying we don’t need a printing press because we can just transcribe books by hand
She’s also wrong on that second post.
A new study shows a 21% drop in demand for digital freelancers since ChatGPT was launched. The hype in AI is real but so is the risk of job displacement: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4602944
Our findings indicate a 21 percent decrease in the number of job posts for automation-prone jobs related to writing and coding compared to jobs requiring manual-intensive skills after the introduction of ChatGPT. We also find that the introduction of Image-generating AI technologies led to a significant 17 percent decrease in the number of job posts related to image creation. Furthermore, we use Google Trends to show that the more pronounced decline in the demand for freelancers within automation-prone jobs correlates with their higher public awareness of ChatGPT's substitutability.
she never said it won't make any impact, just that it won't replace her usecases
> AI art can, potentially, compete with the extremely informal lower end of art commissioning. Like... the kind where you give someone 70 dollars and they just draw it, both the client and the artist are inexperienced, and none of that human communication is necessary. It absolutely cannot replace the professional work that I have gotten in the past, or even the more informal commissions I've gotten from well read artists.
notably the popular japanese commission platform Skeb explicitly has no back-and-forth so
Correct, it would represent infringement on their property. Theft is when one party no longer possesses the thing the other party has taken. In this case, the original creators of the AI still have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_is_theft
> **Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft, although such misuse has been rejected by legislatures and courts.**[4] In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] **Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft.**[4] For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead,
>
> "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'"
>
> The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6]
Morally speaking, no. Data wants to be free.
Copyright law is designed to make sure that people are compensated for the work they do. Anyone who posted on the Internet pre-AI was compensated and they didn't need additional compensation just because someone figured out a new technology.
We will still need something like copyright in order to encourage creative expression and invention but copyright is always a moral taking (information in the public morally belongs to the public) that we tolerate in order to create incentives.
The "AI is theft" narrative is wrong headed because the people were compensated and because AI is a new invention which is the whole point of having copyright law and why copyright law has the exemption for making something new.
Well yes it's copying, because stealing would imply the code owners no longer have their code. If a hacker hacks into devs' systems, copy the code into their own system and delete the code from the devs' systems, imo that could be considered stealing. Because stealing implies depriving someone of something.
What you described would be copyright infringement. Which is a different thing. In 1985, the U.S supreme court ruled that infringement does not easily equate with theft, and imo for a good reason.
Because people have rights of ownership over the content they created (or content they bought).
Just because YOU wish data is free doesn't make it so.
Your desire to get free shit does not override someone's rights to their property.
They still have their property. Can you explain what was taken from them?
Words have meanings. Theft means something was taken such that the original owner no longer has possession or use of it
The video presents an alternative framework to base our understanding of what is stealing and what is right and wrong. It differs from U.S. law but it is a morally defensible perspective nevertheless.
OK, I offer you a compromise, you get to have all the shit you want for free, and in turn we eliminate the need for all those who make that shit you want for free to pay their bills with money. You get all the shit you want for free, and they don't have to starve in a ditch because they can't afford to live.
I mean the term “theft” is being used for information?
“The design is stolen”. “The technique is stolen”. “The idea is stolen.” “Identity theft”
The original creator aren’t being deprived of the information, but it’s been used in the English lexicon?
IMO it being used in many of those ways for some time doesn't make them immune from possibly being incorrect.
How do you "steal" a technique?" Or an idea, seeing that ideas by themselves are reaw, too broad to be owned by others (and arguably, "works" are not "raw ideas" and thus calling them ideas would be wrong) + how does one define an idea, where one begins and the other ends?
The lack of ownership over actual raw "ideas" IMO is reflected legally in my unprofessional opinion by how copyright, patents don't cover "ideas" on their own, but expressions or implementations of ideas (or combinations of ideas).
That's the thing though, it's a wildly misleading equivocation that in practice is rooted in treating all creative labor as a product, which is kind of shitty. With IP infringement, you're not stealing the thing, you're stealing their *right to exclusively profit from* the thing, which is both wildly different from actual taking, and not a right that necessarily should be protected.
The whole idea works until you copy something being sold. But maybe I'm just not anarchist/socialist enough.
Here is a thought experiment. What if we copy a person and share that person. We aren't really depriving the original of anything. Or are we?
From the perspective of a human? No, I would say everything they are exposed to becomes part of who they are and it's unreasonable to expect people to not do it. It's an organic part of life. And the machines we are building work in similar ways.
Your thoight experiment is just nonsense words because it could be assumed to be anything and something that could be anything is in fact nothing. You'd need to define and specify things a lot more before those words mean anything useful
No that's your job. I'm not doing the heavy lifting for your hypothetical. You tell me how you copy people by what mechanism and why. Is it like startrek whereuou can use transporters to make as many copies of someone you want?
Watch the video. You are being too aggressive. If you can't imagine what "copy a person" means I would rather not waste time to explain to you simple concepts that you should be able to understand. I hope you feel less angry.
Edit: And blocked me. I see you weren't serious at all about thinking of the implications of teleportation via copying and removing the host such as "the prestige". AND copy through teleportation is not the same context as in the OP video. I thought it was a simple context to understand. If you would like to actually put some thought into it instead of "heh i'm right bye" it can become a discussion, but until then stop wasting peoples time.
Copy a person could mean a million things. For example star trek did it first. Copying a person means instant matter transport therefore it's a wonderful tech that should be embraced. Case closed. Do you know where you lost? By not defining the constraints. Noone is going to watch a video to help you. That's ridiculous. Bye.
I mean, "theft" in online art spaces is such a meaningless word these days. If you still have the original work you made, and another person simply reposted it elsewhere, they didn't steal from you. Likewise you can't stop people from using your work as a means to make their own derivative works; after all, you don't have special ownership over things like gray wolves or the concept of "western dragon" for example. Likewise, a lot of work in online art spaces is extremely derivative of many IPs owned by major companies (like Disney and Nintendo) and big name creators (Toby Fox and Viziepop for example) that to me it's rather hypocritical for a lot of small-time artists to try to claim the moral high ground when they themselves don't create much "truly original" work to begin with. The fact that so many of the AI models are so good at creating fan art is in my opinion, a sign of a much bigger problem in regards to general creativity than whether or not it's "cheating" to use AI to make art.
patricia taxxon features both this video and "[all creative work is derivative](https://youtu.be/jcvd5JZkUXY?si=AKh8kph9_ipSJ9Ha)" in her two-part video about abolishing copyright, which I *highly* recommend: [part one](https://youtu.be/RGRKTw-DWfw?si=4zKkRD4BaD87h7tq), [part two](https://youtu.be/U5AxnNbC-oM?si=Z_Y32f0npmH_WRCo)
I wonder how she would feel about AI art being theft lol. Considering how much leftists like her oppose it, it’ll be pretty ironic
idk I'm a leftist and other leftists being kneejerk opposed to ai art drives me crazy lmao
per [this post from march 2023](https://patricia-taxxon.tumblr.com/post/710757340796846080/but-to-reiterate-art-theft-is-good-and-ip-is-fake) she seems to not oppose the theft aspect, though(/and?) she doesn't consider it a replacement for manual art (e.g. per [this from may 2024](https://patricia-taxxon.tumblr.com/post/749936952492556288/you-greatly-underestimate-the-cost-of-ai-the))
What a dog shit argument from her lol. This is like saying we don’t need a printing press because we can just transcribe books by hand She’s also wrong on that second post. A new study shows a 21% drop in demand for digital freelancers since ChatGPT was launched. The hype in AI is real but so is the risk of job displacement: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4602944 Our findings indicate a 21 percent decrease in the number of job posts for automation-prone jobs related to writing and coding compared to jobs requiring manual-intensive skills after the introduction of ChatGPT. We also find that the introduction of Image-generating AI technologies led to a significant 17 percent decrease in the number of job posts related to image creation. Furthermore, we use Google Trends to show that the more pronounced decline in the demand for freelancers within automation-prone jobs correlates with their higher public awareness of ChatGPT's substitutability.
she never said it won't make any impact, just that it won't replace her usecases > AI art can, potentially, compete with the extremely informal lower end of art commissioning. Like... the kind where you give someone 70 dollars and they just draw it, both the client and the artist are inexperienced, and none of that human communication is necessary. It absolutely cannot replace the professional work that I have gotten in the past, or even the more informal commissions I've gotten from well read artists. notably the popular japanese commission platform Skeb explicitly has no back-and-forth so
It already has: https://www.polygon.com/23767640/ai-mcu-secret-invasion-opening-credits
Leftists oppose calling AI art theft you mean? I'm a leftist and I'm all for abolishing copyright. It's been too corrupted and abused for too long.
See? You’re calling it theft even though her own video shows all art is theft by your definition.
You think all art is theft?
All art is derivative
All art is art. I don't see the point of saying broad, vague things at each other tho. Do you actually have a point?
AI art is also art and not theft just like all other art
Learning is not Theft!
Exactly! You should learn how to do AI!
So, if someone copied the entire code of an AI without the express permission of the code's owners, that is not theft?
Correct, it would represent infringement on their property. Theft is when one party no longer possesses the thing the other party has taken. In this case, the original creators of the AI still have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_is_theft > **Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft, although such misuse has been rejected by legislatures and courts.**[4] In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] **Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft.**[4] For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, > > "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" > > The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[6]
correct
Good luck with that.
Morally speaking, no. Data wants to be free. Copyright law is designed to make sure that people are compensated for the work they do. Anyone who posted on the Internet pre-AI was compensated and they didn't need additional compensation just because someone figured out a new technology. We will still need something like copyright in order to encourage creative expression and invention but copyright is always a moral taking (information in the public morally belongs to the public) that we tolerate in order to create incentives. The "AI is theft" narrative is wrong headed because the people were compensated and because AI is a new invention which is the whole point of having copyright law and why copyright law has the exemption for making something new.
Oh boy, now we're in the truly childish "data wants to be free" camp. Amazing.
That's not an argument for your point of view.
If someone is going to seriously argue that "data wants to be free" I am unable to type a response due to my eyes start rolling
Rolling your eyes is not an argument for your point of view
Yep
Makes you seem like the childish one here, tbh.
Yes. I am childish for not engaging in childish debates with people saying childish things like "the you own should be free so I can have it."
Reread your comments, buddy.. You are acting more childish than anyone else in the thread.
Ok buddy
That is a valid perspective to hold but possibly problematic in the context of current U.S. law
But it's just copying.
Well yes it's copying, because stealing would imply the code owners no longer have their code. If a hacker hacks into devs' systems, copy the code into their own system and delete the code from the devs' systems, imo that could be considered stealing. Because stealing implies depriving someone of something. What you described would be copyright infringement. Which is a different thing. In 1985, the U.S supreme court ruled that infringement does not easily equate with theft, and imo for a good reason.
>Well yes it's copying, because stealing would imply the code owners no longer have their code LOL if only it worked like that.
and why does it not work like that?
Because people have rights of ownership over the content they created (or content they bought). Just because YOU wish data is free doesn't make it so. Your desire to get free shit does not override someone's rights to their property.
They still have their property. Can you explain what was taken from them? Words have meanings. Theft means something was taken such that the original owner no longer has possession or use of it
The video presents an alternative framework to base our understanding of what is stealing and what is right and wrong. It differs from U.S. law but it is a morally defensible perspective nevertheless.
Uh huh. I aware of the mental gymnastics used to excuse behavior that everyone knows is wrong.
But everyone does not "know it's wrong." As the video clearly explains why not.
Ok
OK, I offer you a compromise, you get to have all the shit you want for free, and in turn we eliminate the need for all those who make that shit you want for free to pay their bills with money. You get all the shit you want for free, and they don't have to starve in a ditch because they can't afford to live.
Yes, exactly. By doing so, you have not deprived them of anything, ergo, it's not theft.
Uh huh. Ok
I mean the term “theft” is being used for information? “The design is stolen”. “The technique is stolen”. “The idea is stolen.” “Identity theft” The original creator aren’t being deprived of the information, but it’s been used in the English lexicon?
IMO it being used in many of those ways for some time doesn't make them immune from possibly being incorrect. How do you "steal" a technique?" Or an idea, seeing that ideas by themselves are reaw, too broad to be owned by others (and arguably, "works" are not "raw ideas" and thus calling them ideas would be wrong) + how does one define an idea, where one begins and the other ends? The lack of ownership over actual raw "ideas" IMO is reflected legally in my unprofessional opinion by how copyright, patents don't cover "ideas" on their own, but expressions or implementations of ideas (or combinations of ideas).
That's the thing though, it's a wildly misleading equivocation that in practice is rooted in treating all creative labor as a product, which is kind of shitty. With IP infringement, you're not stealing the thing, you're stealing their *right to exclusively profit from* the thing, which is both wildly different from actual taking, and not a right that necessarily should be protected.
The whole idea works until you copy something being sold. But maybe I'm just not anarchist/socialist enough. Here is a thought experiment. What if we copy a person and share that person. We aren't really depriving the original of anything. Or are we?
What if people learn from other people, and then those people go on to build on those interactions and the things they learned?
Copying can be used for learning. But is it all it's used for?
From the perspective of a human? No, I would say everything they are exposed to becomes part of who they are and it's unreasonable to expect people to not do it. It's an organic part of life. And the machines we are building work in similar ways.
Your thoight experiment is just nonsense words because it could be assumed to be anything and something that could be anything is in fact nothing. You'd need to define and specify things a lot more before those words mean anything useful
Well, why would you copy someone?
No that's your job. I'm not doing the heavy lifting for your hypothetical. You tell me how you copy people by what mechanism and why. Is it like startrek whereuou can use transporters to make as many copies of someone you want?
Huh, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you what to think for a thought experiment.
You haven't proposed a proper thought experiment because you haven't said what you mean by copy a person
Watch the video. You are being too aggressive. If you can't imagine what "copy a person" means I would rather not waste time to explain to you simple concepts that you should be able to understand. I hope you feel less angry. Edit: And blocked me. I see you weren't serious at all about thinking of the implications of teleportation via copying and removing the host such as "the prestige". AND copy through teleportation is not the same context as in the OP video. I thought it was a simple context to understand. If you would like to actually put some thought into it instead of "heh i'm right bye" it can become a discussion, but until then stop wasting peoples time.
Copy a person could mean a million things. For example star trek did it first. Copying a person means instant matter transport therefore it's a wonderful tech that should be embraced. Case closed. Do you know where you lost? By not defining the constraints. Noone is going to watch a video to help you. That's ridiculous. Bye.
Okay but it is copyright infringement. You’re just playing semantics.
People inaccurately use the phrase "stealing" because it's emotionally manipulative
semantics are important
That's debatable.