IP and copywrite arent the same. IP is a way for companies to own the idea behind a work, a character, setting, etc.
Copywrite (copyright? Idk) is a protection from plagarism. We as leftists support the person who does labor getting the value from that labor. Copywrite when used right is just protecting that idea.
If you write a book someone cant come along and photo copy it and start selling your book under their own name for example.
I am not “anti-AI” despite what the person you responded to tried to make it sound like. I am anti plagarism of hard working artists by huge companies. I would be perfectly fine with an artist for example feeding an AI model exclusively their own work to train it, or public domain works, and then using it to help them with tedious parts of drawing or something like that.
My point of mentioning that AI needs human made art as input to work with is that its essentially a fancy photo copier with extra abilites. But companies are acting as if the AI is “making” things on its own and stealing all the labor value that went into the art it trained on for themselves.
You seem to be missing the entire point. An artist makes a work, a company takes that work without paying them, feeds it to an AI, and produces other works which they can use as their own.
The exact mechanisms behind how it works does not matter. Not to mention the fact that not even the people who make LLMs know how their code works. So telling me to examine the code is ridiculous.
This is not about the resulting work being similar it is about the original work by the artist being used to train the AI without their consent, and without compensating them.
When i said the AI is essentially a photo copier i wasn’t talking about the technology behind it. That should have been obvious. I was talking about the material reality of what happens.
Photo copier: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.
Generative AI: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.
They are the same in this regard. Obviously i was not implying that they are the same mechanically.
The part that matters is that the original work is where the labor value is put in. It takes labor to create the original work, but does not take labor to produce the new work. Be that on a photo copier making copies, or on an AI generating stuff.
To pretend as if the AI is just the same as some other artist mimicing a style is to show you have no understanding of the labor theory of value, or you simply do not care for it.
If another artist is mimicing a style they are putting in their own labor to do so. They are adding labor value themselves. They are also using the original work in a consentual manner. When an artist puts out work they are consenting to others viewing it and perhaps taking inspiration from it. What they are NOT consenting to is that work being scraped from the internet, fed into an AI, and used to pump out unlimited new works for someone elses profit. Just as they are not cosenting to someone photo copying their work and doing the same thing.
To try and argue that I’m the one supporting a bourgeois framework when you are the one who is seemingly completely ignoring where the actual value here comes from (the labor) is comical.
You continue to argue against things i never said aswell. Implying i advocated for expaning IP, and ignoring the fact i very clearly made a distinction that i don’t support plagarism done by companies. Then implying that whatever i would setup in place of the current system, which i never specified, would somehow benefit companies instead of artists. Funny how you just seem to imagine things I think or say when they arent true. Then argue against those instead of what i actually said. Isn’t there a word for that?