The “thus pro-AI” is just so, so, stupid. Like, any anti-capitalist argument you make against copyright just immediately implodes when you do the qui bono.
Kind of a ramble: So, I’ve been out in the wild recently. I use discord and have noticed that in most of the servers I’m in, either they have an explicit no-genAI policy or quarantined sections where genAI content is allowed. On one podcast’s server, I posted a complaint about some genAI content that was posted to the podcast’s socials, and the embed was removed because it showed the genAI content- 10/10, love to see it. On another server, I figured out that the channel was created specifically because they had a sealion problem but didn’t want to ban their sealion (it appeared to be just one).
An interesting (read: stupid) thing about this sealion was that they are a self-styled leftist that was pro-AI. I won’t try to replicate any of their nonsense here, because A) it was nonsense stemming from a refusal to believe any anti-AI data and a lack of understanding of how LLMs work, and B) I don’t want to look like I’m posting about some kind of argument I had elsewhere here in order to score internet points, as I’m self aware/anxious enough to know that I sound exactly like that right now.
They posted this recent article
written by Peter Coffin. There isn’t much about this guy on the internet. All I can gather is that they are some kind of breadtuber or in the breadtube orbit. It’s funny (read: farcical) to see a person posing as leftist say they are “pro-AI” but “anti-AI industry”. Either they don’t understand how the technology works (i.e. ignorant) or are accelerationist, wanting both the destruction of the environment and art (i.e. wilfully stupid)
Anyway, this exploration has shown me that some leftists don’t support copyright protections. I understand that from a couple different perspectives: 1. The main beneficiaries of copyright protections are large media corporations, and 2. it can be interpreted as trying to capitalistically extract fictional value, much like a landlord charging rent. I’m not trying to debunk this (I don’t think I’m representing this well enough). My thought is that I don’t give a shit about corporations losing money, what I care about is the work of individual artists being under/de-valued. Copyrights are an imperfect method that artists use to try seek justice, so it’s a grey area for me. Coffin in the article linked paints the situation as black and white: anyone who tries to stop someone “stealing” is actually rent seeking, whether or not they are a megacorp or a starving artist. (edit) I think this comes from Coffin's "extremely pro-AI" agenda, i.e., being anti-AI is enough to be reductively lumped together under some conspiratorial pro-capitalist agenda.
End of ramble, sorry that there wasn’t much of a point or structure here. Would love to hear any thoughts that come out from reading this.
E: note that this vid is posted as a common criticism of Coffin.
E2:
I really didn't know about this before writing that edit. I did some more reading. Coffin is something of a pick-me internet guy, his entire personality crystallised by that video. He's moved from internet trend to internet trend, one of note being gamergate, formerly anti, now pro (yes, as of 2024). He also did rap parodies? Anyway this isn't about him.
I stumbled onto that vid a while back, watched the first minute or so, lol'ed at the glazing of kokotajlo, and stopped the vid. I did think about posting it here to be torn apart but forgot about it. I watched a little bit further and got "they chose to write this as a narrative" of course they fucking did. It's their one thing. Write a shitty 10k word story that amounts to some combination of "really makes you think" and "big if true".
Here's a story: Once upon a time there was a world. In it people were sad. Then one day swlabr was elected supreme benevolent ruler and then nobody was sad again :) the end. Wow make u think. Many experts agree
This is something I’ve been thinking about. There’s a lot of dialogue about “purity” and “purity tests” and “reading the room” in the more general political milieu. I think it’s fine to be picky in this context, because how else will your opinion be heard, let alone advocated for?
Like, there’s a time and place for consensus. Consensus often comes from people expressing their opinions and reaching a compromise, and rarely from people coming in already agreeing.
So wrt this particular example, it’s totally fine to be critical and picky. If you were discussing this in the forum where this letter was written, it probably wouldn’t be ok.
Ah yes, stochastic terrorists famously do not self-radicalise by nestling deeper into extremist spaces, AI definitely doesn’t do that by design, and AI companies have famously been good at detecting when people have gone off the deep end and need some form of intervention. So we should definitely give Sam Altman the keys to the golden panopticon
I’m not saying you are wrong about anything in particular. Just I think you would be surprised how similar your words are to what was uttered in good faith by many well meaning people over a wide variety of times and places, over things that later were mostly forgotten.
I swear to god if yud goes on conan needs a friend (who recently interviewed a freshly minted riyadh comedy festival alum bill burr) i will unplug from this simulation
If there isn't a term, maybe you get to invent one! Just exploring the concept a bit here to try to generate leads, in case you wanted them.
To rephrase your concept, you have A) things that are collective attention thieves/time sinks for a particular field or industry, and B) this vaporware appears to have a good profit-to-opportunity cost ratio, but in reality, it does not.
You could focus on just A), with a direct naming of "collective attention thief". You can substitute "collective" with "industry" and "attention thief" with "time sink", etc. Or something like "kleptoware" or "sinkware", "holetech", etc.
Focusing on just B), you might come up with something like "bubbleware", "bubble" indicating that the vaporware has inflated value.
Combining the two, you might name it after a scam. Maybe "pigeonware" after the pigeon drop scam, or "fawneyware" or "fiddleware" etc., there are many scams you could use.
ok this is likely nothing of real substance but I searched the name of the dude, and discovered that A) there is a wiki of notable incels/incel influencers and B) the OOP has an entry. It's the same username as in the reddit screenshot.
E: originally I had embedded a link to said incel wiki. Removed because the wiki is run by incels. It’s not hard to find.
you all joke, but my mind is so expanded by stimulants that I, and only I, can see how this dogshit code will one day purchase all the car manufacturers and build murderbots
The “thus pro-AI” is just so, so, stupid. Like, any anti-capitalist argument you make against copyright just immediately implodes when you do the qui bono.