701–710 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are photographers. Here is the definition of an artist so you can have better clarity on what an artist is: "A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination"
Your definition assumes that photography is not art and/or doesn't involve conscious skill and creative imagination. That's not the consensus, to put it mildly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are photographers. Here is the definition of an artist so you can have better clarity on what an artist is: "A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination"
Your definition assumes that photography is not art and/or doesn't involve conscious skill and creative imagination. That's not the consensus, to put it mildly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you?
> If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you? Lots, I'm sure. / Besides, this is a straw man. And it misses the point. I am opposed to your choice of language, not because I'm trying to "control" how you frame or prioritize things, but because it suggests a deep misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. You claimed that copyright law forces people to be…
There is a thing called metaphor, and it's totally legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that. In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.
> According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. And yet it's completely and absolutely wrong. Value is created by the subjective utility offered to the consumer, irrespective of what inputs created the thing conveying that utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you? Lots, I'm sure. / Besides, this is a straw man. And it misses the point. I am opposed to your choice of language, not because I'm trying to "control" how you frame or prioritize things, but because it suggests a deep misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. You claimed that copyright law forces people to be…
So first you declare my language choice unacceptable . Next, you ask me if I have read Orwell? Maybe it's time you had a refresh. There is a thing called metaphor, and it's totally legal.
I mentioned Orwell because I was trying to throw you a bone. I was trying to show that I was engaging with you: to find some conceptual connection to what you wrote.
Looking back, this feels a little like the motte-and-bailey fallacy: you started off by making a ridiculous claim ("Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly"). Much later you "retreat" to calling it a metaphor.
You might have known it was metaphor all along, but if so, why did you double down? Why persist? Again, I think there is high chance that you like the reaction you get. It seems to me that people often seek attention in this way. There is a downside: many people seeing the kind of language you used will think "loony!" and stop engaging.
Attempting to convince people by exaggerated metaphor can of course work! But if it does, I don't think you really want to take credit for it. People that easily swayed are not a prize worth counting. Besides, if you only "win" someone's agreement by rhetoric, you can expect the next person will "win" that same mind by some subsequent emotional appeal. Careful choice of words might take longer but it has less blowback. Rhetoric is the fast food of persuasion. (Yes, I can use metaphor too!)
Nothing personal. For years, I've attempted to discuss things with people that seem puzzling and/or stubborn. Thanks for discussing.
[flagged]
Sigh. Once again: I always love it when techbros say that AI learning and human learning are exactly the same, because reading one thing at a time at a biological pace and remembering takeaway ideas rather than verbatim passages is obviously exactly the same thing as processing millions of inputs at once and still being able to regurgitate sources so perfectly that verbatim copyrighted content can be spit out of an L…
https://www.aisnakeoil.com/p/generative-ais-end-run-around-c...
A few months ago I made a proof-of-concept on how finetuning Stable Diffusion XL on known bad/incoherent images can actually allow it to output "better" images if those images are used as a negative prompt, i.e. specifying a high-dimensional area of the latent space that model generation should stay away from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37211519 There's a nonzero chance that encouraging the creation of a la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. And yet it's completely and absolutely wrong. Value is created by the subjective utility offered to the consumer, irrespective of what inputs created the thing conveying that utility.
You are using marginal utility value theory. Parent comment is using labor value theory. In fact, there are also other value theories in economy. It's a mostly philosophical choice, and like other philosophical choices, it's not possible to accuse one of them of being wrong. It's a matter of choosing your philosophy, and understanding different philosophies.
Yes, I'm aware. This is precisely why I'm stating the prior comment to be "absolutely wrong". Marginal utility is a substantially valid model, LTV is not.
> In fact, there are also other value theories in economy. It's a mostly philosophical choice, and like other philosophical choices, it's not possible to accuse one of them of being wrong.
Sure it is. These aren't theories in a normative sense, they're models of causality for manifest phenomena. They're closer to scientific theories than they are to philosophical axioms. LTV simply doesn't bear out with observation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you measure "benefit", and what does "net" actually mean?
Well what normally happens when something new clearly doesn't exactly fit within existing laws and practices is a bunch of rich people consider whether there is more money to be made if its legal and if it is they give some portion of the money they expect to make in the first year to lawmakers, sometimes in the form of gold bars, and it becomes legal. Sarcasm aside there is no moral right to ANY intellectual propert…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is ? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?
Well first I meant "not rivalrous", whoops typo. But from there my point was that, in order to ask what "should be", you must ask what can be. I don't think there is a way for ideas to be non-rivalrous, period. So sure, saying ideas are not rivalrous is descriptive, but there isn't really another option.