big if true

Again, nothing is being stolen when an individual uses genAI for personal use.

Artists aren’t losing anything. Their stuff is being copied and regurgitated but they’ve lost nothing.

As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I’m absolutely also concerned with how AI is going to impact workers in the commercial art, but the argument that AI is ‘stealing’ is just nonsense for the same reason piracy isn’t stealing. We’re in agreement on the conclusion I think, I just think the argument is poor.

wtf is a ‘rabe’?

I just thought more people on this site would be against generative AI in general.

I’m opposed to how AI is going to interact with our economy, and hurt artists, but as I’ve said that’s an issue with capitalism far more than it’s an issue with the technology.

I understand the kneejerk reaction against it, but in my mind the tech is out the bag now and not going back in, so it feels meaningless to argue against its existence, especially along lines we as socialists otherwise don’t agree with, like on “stealing IP” or the “soul of art” or whatever.

As always we should advocate for the rights of workers. In a fairer economy, AI would just be a harmless toy if not a useful and productive tool.

stolen information

Nothing is being stolen. Copying isn’t stealing. I’m a communist, I don’t believe in IP.

I feel like you can level these same arguments against piracy. I “steal” art without permission all the time; the sum of hours and hours of work and expertise, and I consume it all for free.

AI is going to fuck commercial artists and I’m opposed to that (though it’s a capitalism problem more than it’s an technology problem), but I’ll stand by the fact that an individual making goofy pictures for personal use that they’d never ever had paid for pre-ai is harmless and by no means “stealing”, because nothing is being stole. Same as why I don’t feel guilty downloading a movie that I probably wouldn’t have paid for and watched otherwise.

What’s being stolen when someone uses genAI to make a picture for personal use? In what way is it selfish?

It’s weird if someone acts like they’re ‘making art’, but it’s also harmless.

I agree, it’s bizarre behaviour, but it’s not like anyone is giving consent exclusively based on the meaningless online smalltalk you engage in before you set up a date.

Waiting for OP to tell us what should come next.

Socialism obviously

What specifically is wrong with how the idea was expressed?

Fun fact, they actually did kill some owls but it caused the dirt population in some areas to explode and caused serious ecological reprocussions

My trick was just being direct early about my intentions. Just ask them out on a date, or if you can buy them a drink, or have a kiss, or if they want to go home with you. You’ll usually get a pretty clear and unambiguous response. Personally I’ve never had trouble from being forward - I think as long as you’re respectful in asking and accept their answer most reasonable people are understanding. I will say it’s a scary tactic at first but you’ll quickly realize respectful rejections aren’t that big a deal anyway.

Another option is asking friends in shared social circles what they think. Signs are often more obvious from the outside.

Labour still have an enormous majority, and there’s no reason to think the party would revolt over this - it was a manifesto pledge.

If you’re making a joke I’m sorry I’m just drunk and missing it.

Why would a dam displace hundreds of millions of people?

Water still passes through them even if it’s slightly reduced while they fill. It’s not like the rivers in India suddenly dry up.

That isn’t how dams work.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator