this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
500 points (90.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
1012 readers
135 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright, IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs. I don’t say that like a ‘lmao ur not as smart as me’ but open source AI development, especially stable diffusion and chat LLMs, has caught up to corporate AIs in every way but training data, because unlike the corporations, they walk a thin legal line. I’ve been following it closely since GPT2. It was open source that first came up with the idea of using smaller models to do specific things instead of trying to train one huge model to do everything.
Replying to wrong comment :p
I did see this reply already in the thread though.
o fuq whatever I'm just gonna leave it lmao
You also replied to the wrong comment, but I got you. ;)
Tell that to OpenAI. They're not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
I am generally anti-IP law myself, so I only point it out because the likes of OpenAI and Elon Musk trying to undermine it shows just how desperately dependent they are upon unlicensed content to train their models, and how that makes an interesting contrast to the fact that they hire teams of lawyers to go after people who violate their IP.
Yeah, I'm a pinko commie who also thinks human society should exist for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of all of its members too, but that's a conversation for another time.
I honestly didn't even know it was a thing until recently, so nope, I really have not. I have read about it some though. I use ChatGPT to help me structure writing, worldbuild, etc, and - like most people who use corporate AI - find it easier (for the moment) then installing a bunch of shit and fiddling with it for hours (so basically it has the same barriers to entry as widespread adoption of linux - if it doesn't just work out of the box, most people don't give a shit how much better it is) only to thrash my GPU into an early grave, and so do millions of other people. I am also skeptical about open source AI's ability to compete long-term on practically any grounds (accessibility, volume of training data, responsiveness, advanced model features, integration with existing software, etc), but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count.
This is one of those cases where two groups seem like they are united on a subject but aren't really. OpenAI claims they want to abolish copyright for the good of themselves and AI, but that isn't really true. They just want immunity from it, complete death of copyright doesn't benefit them or any of the companies, since they'd lose their moral high horse against civilians using their material without paying them, as well as their ability to legally retaliate.
Really their claimed stance against copyright doesn't undermine any of the anarchist and pirate arguments against IP law as it is today and as a concept, it doesn't even align with it. It's no different than right wingers saying there's a war on science or that they want to protect women and children from groomers. It's just obfuscating or lying about their intentions. OpenAI is just claiming their against copyright because it's easier to swallow than saying they wish to be immune from copyright, maybe even be able to usurp individual people's copyrights outright.
This was not an argument about how everyone who has talked about avoiding or abolishing IP law is the same or has the same intentions, this was an argument about how AI is utterly dependent upon unlicensed content, and as evidence goes, them saying 'gosh we really need to be able to skirt/get rid of/whatever this to keep going' is, regardless of the complexities of the situation, in itself evidence of that fact.
The specifics of their particular flavor of opposition to being bound by IP law, while interesting, don't particularly matter to that argument. But thanks for the added context.