TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
★
PR's Tumblrdome
official daine visual archive
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
if i look back, i am lost
Origami Around
taylor price
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
Interview Vampire Daily
art blog(derogatory)
@theartofmadeline
almost home
The Stonewall Inn
untitled
bliss lane
Claire Keane
h
oozey mess
Love Begins
seen from South Korea
seen from India
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from Brazil
seen from Australia
seen from Colombia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil
seen from Colombia
seen from Indonesia
@socialorganism
"You need my consent to make art"
Is the same as,
"I get to tell you what to do with your body"
Which reveals it's not actually about protecting consent at all. It's the opposite. It's about imposing your will on another person in an effort to censor their expression. This should be obvious, but you're all reactionaries anyway
the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed
like the thing with the film rights to MLK's speeches being owned by spielberg / dreamworks, that's not actually an instance where copyright law failed to protect artists. that's the system working as intended. MLK's speeches were his intellectual property. when he died the rights to that intellectual property transfered to his family, and his family decided to sell those rights to dreamworks, thereby functionally preventing anyone else from legally using those speeches in a film for the next several decades. no crime was committed, nobody was tricked into anything, that's just how intellectual property rights work
obvsies i thought relentlessly hounding artists because of genAI use in art or writing was a pointless waste of time to begin with but getting mad at indie game devs for using claude code or whatever is just completely unsustainable lol you are asking dev teams who already have less money and resources to fully swear off a de facto standard element of every modern professional coding workflow
"Overconsumption is bad because we have limited resources on earth and the production of your comforts is done by practically enslaved global southerners" - yes real. Fucking real and true.
"Overconsumption is bad because you will get fat and lazy and stupid and fat and your brain will rot and youll be a feeble whiny disabled" - okay you are a eugenecist. Can you fucking hear yourself
same thing for ai usage. Are you complaining about companies investing in ai over people, or are you just an inch of self preservation away from openly calling its users the R slur? Be fucking honest i see how you talk.
#i dont think ppl reliant on ai are inherently disabled actually. im disabled and i find that frankly offensive#ive received my fair share of brain damage but i can tell people who are outsourcing everything to ai are basically headshotting themselves#it is genuinely bad for you thats not said out of a desire to be intellectually superior to anyone.#it is said because i think purposefully lobotomizing yourself is bad for your health#especially when youre poisoning the earth air and water at unprecedented scale to do so#and purposefully sabotaging yourself is... uh... bad?
ok but you are doing the exact thing OP is talking about. what you are saying is false, reactionary, and deeply ableist! you are talking about "headshotting" yourself and "lobotomizing" yourself, that IS exactly what OP means by one inch away from the R slur!
none of this is supported by the science. the most shared studies about AI "brainrot" (and other lovely woke ways to call people brain damaged) are a microsoft survey where nothing was measured, and a MIT paper by some lady with an AI chatbots cognitive consulting startup.
the idea that AI pollution is especially bad compared to the tech industry in general is just blatantly false. the idea that it is in any way "unprecedented" is absurd if you know anything about datacenters in general, the tech industry in general, or industry in general. especially if you're paying attention to its effect on the global south. this is a drop in the bucket compared to cars, agriculture, plastic, literally anything else.
i am disabled. sometimes i rely on AI tools. that includes all the "evil generative AI" (to make todo lists, write boilerplate code, etc) but also the "good analytical AI" like speech to text. if i ran an AI image program 45 minutes a day for a month to make 1400 images, that would emit as much CO2 as a 3 mile car drive, or as making a single meatball of beef.
you're repeating ableist, reactionary propaganda that scapegoats AI as exceptional, and sweeps under the rug much older, worse shit caused by tech you like, like netflix and youtube. you don't have to do that.
Still bruised from the whiplash of seeing people rightly making fun of the NFT guys who used to say right-click saving their apes was stealing... and then abruptly switching to saying that if a machine saves a .png of some drawing and studies it that's stealing.
These things were happening nearly at the same time too.
Have more than one post about this in my archives somewhere but you need to understand that if you still have the thing that was "stolen" then it was not stolen at all.
while i too hate intellectual property as a concept, i also exist in a world where money is a thing people have to worry about so artists not being paid for their labor and instead tech bros making millions in investment capital that will probably never result in anything meaningful useful to most people is worse than intellectual property laws
hope this helps
If we were to apply this reasoning consistently then doing art yourself instead of hiring artists, using freely available assets instead of hiring artists, and doing media piracy would all be just as immoral because you're still ultimately not paying artists.
I don't think any of this is worse than intellectual property laws either, especially if one is opposed to the rich companies that actually own these "intellectual properties". Those laws do not exist for the sake of helping artists.
"we need an economic incentive to create art" no you don't
"copyright and intellectual property laws exist to safeguard this" no they don't
someone sent me anon hate last night over this that was like "hope you enjoy the cruel, empty world you're creating" and i think insisting that art can only exist if intellectual property laws exist is a far dimmer view of the world than anything i could consciously propose
When the country doesn’t have easily accessible public libraries, piracy is sometimes the only option. They’ve been collaborating with the police to arrest poor street vendors and small book shop owners. Evil, just evil
if you’re frightened about the viability of art as labor and your survival and fulfillment you should want to turn those feelings into a critique of labor itself and of capital. rushing to defend the survival of a petit bourgeois artist class as something integral to the existence of art is ultimately probably not going to save you and the expansion of property based law that paradigm is bound in is simply further restricting art to value production
legalize copyright infringement
to be clear this is a fully sincere political belief that I have. I am pro copyright infringement and in fact anti "asking for permission to make derivative art"
a few people in the notes seem to be under the impression that this is a stance that requires caveats. so just so we're all on the same page: no exceptions. "stealing art" (copying existing works for personal gain) is a good thing.
some of you seem to have bought into the capitalist lie that copyright infringement causes artists to "lose money", which fundamentally assumes that everyone (or even like a notable portion) who obtains a would-be-illegal copy would have otherwise paid full price to obtain the original. and like we all know that's not true right
So without copyright, what would prevent capitalists from taking a book and selling copies of it at a much lower price than the author? (thereby preventing the author from making money on their creative work)
this is already how copyright law works. working creatives (the majority of people in the industries) already sign away their work to "capitalists" (problematic wording - petit bourgeois artists are typically already capitalists, but i do understand the intent) and then are not permitted to make money off of or sell their work, have no claim to it, and will be legally decimated if they try to outside of whatever very narrow avenues may be granted to them
Talking to anti-piracy peeps is interesting when they claim that their moral reason for opposing piracy is that the poor artists/musicians/developers aren't getting paid for their hard work because, of the people who claim that, I've yet to meet the first one who, when questioned, thinks it's also morally wrong to buy the same media secondhand from some scalper on ebay or some shit.
Like, let's say I want to enjoy a piece of media, and I can A: pirate it, or B: buy it for $100 from some dude on ebay.
In case A, I get to enjoy the piece of media while not playing anything, and the people who made it get nothing.
In case B, I have to pay $100 to enjoy the piece of media, some rando from ebay gets $100, and the people who made it also get nothing.
If you're fine with case B but not case A, you don't care whether the people who made it get paid or not (and if that was your actual concern you'd contribute more by supporting unions than by opposing piracy huehuehue), you only care whether *I* had to pay for it or not, regardless of who the money went to. You only care that the act of having to pay for entertainment happened, regardless of whether it went to the people you ostensibly care about.
It's far too late but I really wish we stopped calling generative AI "AI" because it's just not Artificial Intelligence.
It's like if we called drums "sonic booms" because they make a loud sound.
It's like if we called all carbonation foam "lava" because of baking soda volcanos.
It's like if we called cars "spaceships" because a car salesman once lied about their product being capable of space travel
It's like if we called vitamin supplements "cancer cures" because some people mistakenly believe they cure cancer
There's a massive difference - people in the field have been calling it AI for decades, even back in the early days of computing there were machines that could do rudimentary learning, which researchers called "artificial intelligence". Because they had a degree of intelligence (even though it wasn't much). The fact that sci fi taught us that "AI" must mean this artificial human-level intellect with general thought capabilities is not really the fault of people who have been calling automated reasoning models "AI" since 1956.
Hell, we've been calling the computer players in videogames "AI" in casual speech for ages, how is that any different?
This is more like people insisting that Pluto has to be a planet because that's what they learned in school, while not addressing Ceres, Eris, Luna, Titan, or any of the other dozen solar system objects that achieved hydrostatic equilibrium.
If you're gonna say that a large language model is not intelligent, you're gonna have to provide a thorough definition of intelligence that excludes it, and I really doubt there's a lot of wiggle room there.
i feel like game piracy is sometimes viewed as this massive disruption to the game industry and not just “a small group of people who weren’t going to buy a game anyways now have it on their computer.” when companies report “losses” due to piracy that’s fake. that’s a fake number because no money was actually ever exchanged and companies cannot possibly know how many people actually pirated their game. piracy does not work like this
I mean truly
"Making you"
Maybe agreeing with conservative christian values regarding labor or art or the soul or ownership should be a red flag, no?
If you wouldn’t want the absolute worst individual on the planet to have control over powerful and deadly systems and institutions, then maybe we should just not-build and constantly reinforce powerful and deadly systems and institutions.
If the government being controlled by Trump or Musk is a problem, then that government probably shouldn’t have ever existed in the first place. It shouldn’t have been armed to the teeth and given supreme power to shit all over us.
Me building a giant horrifying death ray and pointing it at your house: don’t worry, there’ll be checks and balances.
I feel a perpetual deep-seated alienation from most people in academia because everyone behaves like cops and hall monitors, and then I log onto tumblr to see the exact people who do the alienating posting about how emotionally difficult it is for them to report students for (possibly) using AI to write an assignment
wishing hell was real so people like this could be sent there
everyone rightfully complains about how the r word is back in vogue now but I think the people talking about how using ChatGPT makes you a small brained lazy degenerate are getting off way too easy
milcl (man i love copyright law)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere but either way mickey mouse isn't going to fuck you.
milrwjamudcacaltdartsfhtlaodwarbopagkbaapm (man i love remembering when jstor and mit used draconian copyright and computer access laws to drive a researcher to suicide for his totally legal access of documents written and researched by other people and gate kept by an academic publishing monopoly)
No actually the core of my argument here is that data scraping is good actually and information wants to be free and it's more important that we guarantee protection for the right to access and use and transform information than it is to strengthen copyright for any reason.
