Who would find this meme objectionable?

I find it really difficult to understand why that isn’t obvious to someone claiming to be an anarchist.

Whoa there, tiger. It is obvious. You don’t need to throw definitions at me.

I am not both siding anything. Please do not misrepresent what I said in such a crass way.

Begging your pardon your majesty. But that’s what it looks like from over here.

Holy shit, nobody is arguing for a genocide of Jews, we are just demanding Israel stops committing genocide against Palestinians. Both sidesing genocide is really not a good look, especially when Israel is clearly the aggressor.

And again, I am not talking about a legal concept like interlectual property.

If not intellectual property then why intellectual property shaped though? You haven’t really articulated how your version of “consent” is functionally any different from the concept of IP.

Ok fine

I’m not interested in talking about the genAI article where OP sourced the GenAI banner image. It’s not relevant to the discussion. What illuminating point are you trying to make that is so important for us all to hear? Because I seem to have missed it.

Well, your argument is that that LLMs are against anarchist principles because … the company that trained them using publicly available data didn’t ask permission first. Does that sum it up? I get that in an ideal anarchist world we would expect consent to have been respected, I agree with you on that. But I also think there’s a vast difference between coerced to give your labour to some random LLM company, vs them taking a digital copy directly off the internet to train their model. If digital piracy is not theft, then it’s hard for me to fathom what the moral injury is here.

The post isnt about whether the image is an GenAI image or not. That’s got nothing to do with the topic. This is an anarchism comm, not a fuckAI comm.

Which legal/ethical framework are you talking about where one needs the author’s consent to read public text? edit: added ethical

Ok, so to bring the debate back to whether such models are compatible with anarchism, are you saying that even if there were no other issues, your main sticking point is that scraping of every [published] website in existence to train these models was/is non-consentual? Because it didn’t respect some TOS somewhere? I think you’ll find most anarchists don’t give a damn about such things. Surely all human knowledge should be freely available to all, not paywalled behind some business model, or locked in a digital fortress. I mean what do you mean by “ethical” here? Because that’s often a matter of perspective.

Yeah sorry to confuse, I meant the folks in the FuckAI crowd who don’t seem to realize who their enemy really is. And big clue for them, it ain’t hobbyists who use local AI models for useful work. We weren’t paying anyone in the first place, so no jobs are lost. We are running on our own hardware so no datacentres were involved. Like FFS, why not target corpos instead of some rando on a niche website who might want to use an LLM as a tool to get some work done. It’s like blaming climate change on citizen consumption. It’s a complete misdirection from the root problems.

Totally agree with your assessment.

They were civil they were just off topic. Voyager is not the topic of the discussion.

Its not up to me to justify your claim or otherwise. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

What about DeepSeek, they have released open weights, and their models are definitely not toys.

bzer0’s general tolerance for genAI

We dont have a “general” tolerance. We have a tolerance for local non-corporate models.

Politely? lmao

I think the nature of genAI inherently isolates people from one another.

That’s just a random thought, not something substantiated by any evidence presented.

This whole comment chain is way off topic.

You really think it is morally ok to pirate art against the explicit request by an artist to not do so?

Yes, if it’s posted in public, just as it’s ok to pirate games from corporations who don’t want you to do so. If artists want to keep their art private, then go for it! Don’t put it on a public platform. There is still much value in the “original” artwork of artists compared to copies, though obviously less so for digital art. We need only look at the valuations for paintings by famous artists. But copies were always worth less than the originals, and so they should be… especially if the production/distribution costs for copies are approaching zero. Do I think artistseveryone should be paid fairly for their labor? Yes, absolutely. Is copyright the answer to this problem? Absolutely not. It’s fundamentally been co-opted by corporate rent-seekers. Even if it was once designed to protect artists, it’s prime purpose now is corporate profiteering. I’m also curious why “artists” is the hill libs love to die on wrt genAI. Nobody gave a shit when automation was replacing factory and auto workers, but now the comfortable middle class is suddenly affected, you’re all losing your minds.

The internet is also a control tool, better get off now - WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?