Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Dave's posts Post Back to profile
Dave Rahardja

Much as I dislike the theft of human labor that feeds many of the products we see today, I have to agree with @pluralistic that law is the wrong way to address the problem.

To frame the issue concretely: think of whom copyright law has benefited in the past, and then explain how it would benefit the individual creator when it is applied to . (Hint: it won’t.)

Copyright law is already abused and extended to an absurd degree today. It already overreaches. It impoverishes society by putting up barriers to creation and allowing toll-collectors to exist between citizen artists and their audience.

*Labor* law is likely what we need to lean on. and protect creators in a way that copyright cannot. Inequality and unequal bargaining power that lead to exploitation of artists and workers is what we need to address head-on.

Copyright will not save us.

“AI "art" and uncanniness”

pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spo

16 May at 4:49 | Open on sfba.social
7 comments
@990000@mstdn.social

@drahardja I kind of agree and I think copyright law is entirely insufficient to deal with what AI is doing. I think it falls more along crossing lines of ethics and also undermining fair competition because of the automation of copying and reconstituting. We need new laws.

16 May at 4:56 | Open on mstdn.social
Dave Rahardja

@990000 I would go further to say that applying law to will take us *further* from the equitable future we want. If copyright is successfully applied to AI, what we will see after the dust settles is a handful of media behemoths that profit mightily from AI, without slowing down the damage that AI does to the value of creative human labor.

I always return to this pithy guide by @emilymbender when thinking about this topic: we need to think of AI as *automation*, albeit one that is more effective at displacing a wide variety of human labor than ever. We can’t use copyright to stop automation; it will just enrich a different set of kingpins without stopping its effects.

youtube.com/watch?v=eK0md9tQ1K

@990000 I would go further to say that applying law to will take us *further* from the equitable future we want. If copyright is successfully applied to AI, what we will see after the dust settles is a handful of media behemoths that profit mightily from AI, without slowing down the damage that AI does to the value of creative human labor.

16 May at 5:03 | Open on sfba.social
Kyozou

@drahardja @pluralistic Copyright law benefits authors who write books, artists who create art, and musicians who make music. Who do you think it has benefitted?

16 May at 4:58 | Open on sfba.social
Dave Rahardja

@kyozou Please read the article I linked. It has the answers to your question.

16 May at 5:04 | Open on sfba.social
pinkdrunkenelephants

@drahardja @pluralistic Labor laws would in no way stop AI.

We need federal laws directly banning the tech and the use of it. With jail time. That's the only thing that could stop it.

16 May at 12:22 | Open on kolektiva.social
Ron Miller

@drahardja @pluralistic I'm not sure why you're framing it as either/or. Both laws should be applied when it comes to stealing IP or abusing labor.

16 May at 12:24 | Open on noc.social
Filene

@drahardja @pluralistic I've been actually thinking Freedom of Speech, freedom from compulsion to speech, and freedom from speech that might incriminate you, all apply to being pushed or regulated to use an AI. 🤔. I can see this having applications in labor law, for sure.

16 May at 12:47 | Open on dragon.style
Go Up