It’s really telling that the people who are crawling out of the woodwork to brag about how much they hate Pizzacake don’t seem to know the difference between consent and sexual assault.
Who said I don’t like pizzacake? Normally I think her comics are funny. I just think this popular narrative that you’re violating someone’s consent by using their art is totally idiotic. You can’t own ideas, sorry. That’s a highly authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class to justify violence against us, and I think it should be rejected even when it’s not used explicitly in that context.
Consent is important when it comes to bodily autonomy. That’s why we talk about consent. If you’re demanding consent in situations that don’t involve you, that’s the behavior of a control freak.
The only thing idiotic here is that art=idea and therefore no art can be stolen. To prove this, go take some art from your nearest museum. I’ll wait.
But tell me more about how stealing someone’s art for use by AI is an authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class, and how the idea that all art is up for grabs by anyone so it’s totally okay to use it for AI is not the idea from the capitalist class. This is the kind of explanation that deserves some popcorn.
This is literally you wouldn’t download a car level logic. Stealing a physical object is not the same as creating a copy of something digital and then using that. When you deprive someone of something that obviously affects them. Creating a copy does not do this. The artist continues to have their copies to use as they wish.
I have taken photos of art in museums and strangely I was not arrested. Perhaps because that’s common sense?
Copying is not stealing. It’s insane that this anti-AI moral panic has gotten so severe that it’s infecting and degrading other strongly held and logical positions people on the left have had for literal centuries. Hopefully this will pass soon.
These laws and norms against copying and using IP only exist for rights holders to extract economic rents from ordinary people for doing normal things like copying and modifying art. People did this for thousands perhaps millions of years without restrictions until capitalism came along.
AI companies want art to be up for grabs but they also want to own the products of it. You can object to the first part if you want to preserve capitalist IP norms, or you can object to the second part if you want to overturn them. I know where I stand. Do you?
So you’re pretending you didn’t say all art are ideas so therefore they can’t be stolen now that you’ve realized how silly of a statement that was. But now you’ve moved on to other silly statements.
Scraping art for AI usage is not merely making copies. You would need to be woefully ignorant of how LLMs, AI companies, and people have been scraping work for AI usage for the past 5 years to believe that it’s tantamount to taking a photo of a painting and not used any further.
The laws and norms of copyright usage have not been properly applied to AI scraping at all either. You’re just referring to a poor understanding of copyright history as if that will magically making scraping all art, content, and IP be the justifiable thing to do, while ignoring who all are behind doing such a thing in the first place. You’re arguing that what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Twitter, and Microsoft are doing is actually anti-capitalist practice by stealing all content they can, while also saying they’re not stealing because art are ideas and therefore all art is up for grabs.
You should take a step back and realize you’ve sided with the capitalist companies against an independent creator here in order to suggest that it’s the artist who’s wrong and the big capitalist and it’s the big trillion-dollar companies that are correct and anti-capitalist.
I’m not pretending anything. All art does consist of ideas. Some also consists of a physical aspect and that physical aspect can be stolen. The intellectual, or idea part cannot be.
You’re the one who tried to move the goalposts to physical media with your museum analogy. So I modified that to make it as close to this situation as possible but still contain the same concepts–making a copy, and then, yes, using it however I wish after the fact. I didn’t spell that out because I thought the point was obvious but sure we can go there too.
I can take my photographs of paintings and put them into AI training data if I want to. The museum is not going to hunt me down for this because again, it obviously harms no one.
But let me make my own analogy here. If I broke into PizzaCake’s house and stole a physical print of this comic, are you asserting that’s the same as me downloading a copy of it here? Let’s say I use them the same way after the fact, for AI or whatever harmless use you find most offensive.
The entire AI industry stands on top of the IP house of cards you are defending far more fundamentally than any need to access data for free. If they were forced to follow copyright law, sure, their training data might get a bit worse, it might cost them a bit more but fundamentally they would continue to do the same things. In contrast, if they didn’t have a monopoly on the product of that training, there would be no profit model for them whatsoever. And you are defending that foundation here, no matter what you may think.
![Scrapist [PizzaCake]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/9ac42d45-d20f-4c72-ac94-1269c5dd363d.png){kind=link}
It’s really telling that the people who are crawling out of the woodwork to brag about how much they hate Pizzacake don’t seem to know the difference between consent and sexual assault.
Who said I don’t like pizzacake? Normally I think her comics are funny. I just think this popular narrative that you’re violating someone’s consent by using their art is totally idiotic. You can’t own ideas, sorry. That’s a highly authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class to justify violence against us, and I think it should be rejected even when it’s not used explicitly in that context.
Consent is important when it comes to bodily autonomy. That’s why we talk about consent. If you’re demanding consent in situations that don’t involve you, that’s the behavior of a control freak.
The only thing idiotic here is that art=idea and therefore no art can be stolen. To prove this, go take some art from your nearest museum. I’ll wait.
But tell me more about how stealing someone’s art for use by AI is an authoritarian idea created by the capitalist class, and how the idea that all art is up for grabs by anyone so it’s totally okay to use it for AI is not the idea from the capitalist class. This is the kind of explanation that deserves some popcorn.
This is literally you wouldn’t download a car level logic. Stealing a physical object is not the same as creating a copy of something digital and then using that. When you deprive someone of something that obviously affects them. Creating a copy does not do this. The artist continues to have their copies to use as they wish.
I have taken photos of art in museums and strangely I was not arrested. Perhaps because that’s common sense?
Copying is not stealing. It’s insane that this anti-AI moral panic has gotten so severe that it’s infecting and degrading other strongly held and logical positions people on the left have had for literal centuries. Hopefully this will pass soon.
These laws and norms against copying and using IP only exist for rights holders to extract economic rents from ordinary people for doing normal things like copying and modifying art. People did this for thousands perhaps millions of years without restrictions until capitalism came along.
AI companies want art to be up for grabs but they also want to own the products of it. You can object to the first part if you want to preserve capitalist IP norms, or you can object to the second part if you want to overturn them. I know where I stand. Do you?
So you’re pretending you didn’t say all art are ideas so therefore they can’t be stolen now that you’ve realized how silly of a statement that was. But now you’ve moved on to other silly statements.
Scraping art for AI usage is not merely making copies. You would need to be woefully ignorant of how LLMs, AI companies, and people have been scraping work for AI usage for the past 5 years to believe that it’s tantamount to taking a photo of a painting and not used any further.
The laws and norms of copyright usage have not been properly applied to AI scraping at all either. You’re just referring to a poor understanding of copyright history as if that will magically making scraping all art, content, and IP be the justifiable thing to do, while ignoring who all are behind doing such a thing in the first place. You’re arguing that what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Twitter, and Microsoft are doing is actually anti-capitalist practice by stealing all content they can, while also saying they’re not stealing because art are ideas and therefore all art is up for grabs.
You should take a step back and realize you’ve sided with the capitalist companies against an independent creator here in order to suggest that it’s the artist who’s wrong and the big capitalist and it’s the big trillion-dollar companies that are correct and anti-capitalist.
I’m not pretending anything. All art does consist of ideas. Some also consists of a physical aspect and that physical aspect can be stolen. The intellectual, or idea part cannot be.
You’re the one who tried to move the goalposts to physical media with your museum analogy. So I modified that to make it as close to this situation as possible but still contain the same concepts–making a copy, and then, yes, using it however I wish after the fact. I didn’t spell that out because I thought the point was obvious but sure we can go there too.
I can take my photographs of paintings and put them into AI training data if I want to. The museum is not going to hunt me down for this because again, it obviously harms no one.
But let me make my own analogy here. If I broke into PizzaCake’s house and stole a physical print of this comic, are you asserting that’s the same as me downloading a copy of it here? Let’s say I use them the same way after the fact, for AI or whatever harmless use you find most offensive.
The entire AI industry stands on top of the IP house of cards you are defending far more fundamentally than any need to access data for free. If they were forced to follow copyright law, sure, their training data might get a bit worse, it might cost them a bit more but fundamentally they would continue to do the same things. In contrast, if they didn’t have a monopoly on the product of that training, there would be no profit model for them whatsoever. And you are defending that foundation here, no matter what you may think.