LadyAutumn

I love that on my arch setup, I update every single day, usually more than once, and doing so almost never requires me to powercycle my computer.

So morality of crime is defined by the success of the victim?

Close, the morality of a crime is defined by the impact that committing the crime has on the lives and rights of others. Killing someone is a vile crime. You've taken away someone's inaliable right to life. Stealing from the poor is a vile crime. You have taken the means of survival from someone who struggles to survive. Stalking is a vile crime. You've interceded on someone's inaliable right to privacy and safety.

How does downloading a cracked video game or a TV show impact others? Who is being victimized, and how are they being victimized? Say, for instance, that today I download a game for free. What tangible impact does this have on others?

So if our 'victim' is a multi billion dollar corporation that is one of the fastest growing game companies in the world and is quickly approaching income levels rivaling some small nations, the tangible impact that me downloading their game for free has is literally none. There is no impact. They will never even know that I did it, and I do not consider the "right to commerce" as a fundamental human right. I do not think that me taking potential profits from billionaire investors is in any way interceding on their human rights and also do not believe that the action causes any harm to them.

So if you become incredibly successful for what you created there becomes a point where it's moral for you to lose all rights and control over your art?

Corporations are not people. The designers artists and programmers at Nintendo do not direcy profit from game sales. They are paid a salary by their company. Again, it's relative. There is no such thing as a moral absolute, we have to consider the context in which actions happen and the effects those actions cause. Stealing from the poor is vile. Stealing from Walmart isn't.

So then the moral of the lesson is that art is worthless and creating new things serves no useful purpose?

I do not consider the primary purpose of art to be profit for shareholders, if that's what you consider "useful purpose". Art is useful in that it communicates human emotions and experiences. It's useful in that it delights us, it inspires us, and we take great enjoyment in it. Even if all art was free, this would still be true. Free games are fun. Free books are worth reading. Free music is worth listening to. Paintings don't lose value because I can see them without paying. Your view of art and your view of capital are so intertwined that you are ignorant of the reality that art is not capital.

Almost like the game companies learned that same lesson from people like you and just started making shittier games to accomodate their shittier fans.

Every single corporation on Earth will cut as many corners as possible to generate the maximum possible revenue for the minimal possible cost. Shitty games still sell exceedingly well. They have a profit incentive to invest as little money into their games as possible. Games as products are less enjoyable than games as art. We love games whose creators felt passion in creating them. We love games whose designers believed in what they were making, and felt connected to their product. Faceless corporations lose this entirely. Games are how Nintendo makes money. Therefore, even if no one wants to make this game, it must be made. For Nintendo must turn profit. This is part of the reason some games are amazing experiences and others are clear, transparent cash grabs.

I'm anti capitalist and explicitly anti commerce, especially with regards to large corporations, so. Whether it's for piracy or not doesn't matter. When I buy a game, I should have a legal right to do whatever I want with the data comprising that game. Including creating software to play it on other devices. It, therefore, should absolutely be legal to create and use emulators. Whether a particular end user is using it on legitimately purchased copies is beyond the scope of control of the creator of the emulator. This was already settled in courts in the 90s.

Piracy is also moral. It's always moral to pirate content created and/or distributed my international corporations with income in the billions.

The very beginning. The emulator scene has existed since the 80s. The emulator scene has fought against Nintendo since literally the NES. And they have frequently won.

Painting nails different colors has always been a thing lol

No, I meant the overall quality of games has not gotten better since the introduction of microtransactions as an industry wide concept.

And that tracks with how I play games. The majority of games I play were released prior to 2015. I don't play competitive games, multi-player games, or any of the kinds of games that are usually full of microtransactions. I never have. The few games I do play from the last few years are ones that lack microtransactions.

I'm not saying it doesn't contribute to their bottom line, but it's not the devs who profit off of microtransactions. It's the share holders. Game development has existed since the 70s, microtransactions have not. The primary people benefiting from microtransactions are shareholders. And if anything the work load on developers has gotten significantly worse and the quality of games has not gotten better.

Microtransactions suck.

I do think it's important that people know what it is they're celebrating, but yeah like my local Chinese community always does a lunar new year celebration that is open to everyone. I think a lot of Chinese people (and other communities that celebrate the lunar new year, like Okinawan Korean Vietnamese and many others) see open celebration as creating more appreciation for and understanding of their culture.

Results vary wildly. Some images are near pixel perfect. Others, it clearly knows what image it is intended to be replicating. Like it gets all the conceptual pieces in the right places but fails to render an exact copy.

Not a very good compression ratio if the image you get back isn't the one you wanted, but merely an image that is conceptually similar.

Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?

Yes, an-caps lol famous for standing up for small time by commission digital artists trying to avoid exploitation of their creations. Totally yup you got me. All my criticism of corporations and pointing how AI art specifically benefits corporations at the detriment of actual human beings is very ancap of me.

Your whole bit about a new owner class is just, so far out there I don't even know what you're on. I don't have time to try and work through the justifications for why you think that you're entitled to make a mimic program for other peoples stuff. Not just to do it, but to claim that it makes you an artist.

Sorry but nah you're in the minority here. In this specific community in this specific space your voice is overrepresented. I've never met another person who agrees that our prototypical Charlotte and others like her are demonic overlords of the new ruling class who are seeking to subvert creativity and lock it in their hands. God, most of the artists I know willingly train others and a lot of them make content to train others. Now you're essentially complaining that you can't draw lmao like it's just ridiculous. I can't draw either, that's fine I don't want to put in the work to be able to create real visual art. I can live with that. I wouldn't use an ethically sourced AI image generator anyway, as it's literally an elaborate RNG function with a mimicry algorithm attached to it. It has no meaning and is empty.

Like typing "a cool painting" into bing image generator, which then tries its best to copy other real paintings made by real people, makes you an artist somehow. It doesn't. And you're not going to convince me of that, of all people. Let alone the majority of society who definitely do not agree that that makes you an artist, or that it makes it right to scrape images from artists like that.

Also the bit about me deeming people to have talent is just stupid. I'm not judging their artistic ability, I'm saying they're literally not making art they're not showcasing any artistic ability whether I think it's good or not.

I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I've described what I think is right pretty fully. I don't need you to tell me where I stand.

You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I'm not mistaking you for someone else. I'm just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I'm fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That's it fam I'm out