Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
view the rest of the comments
You realize the copyright system you're defending was created for the purpose of benefiting those billionaires right? Do you think artists want copyright to last longer than they are alive and then some? Also do you think all the so-called "mom and pop artists" can afford to fight for their copyright in court if some chud decides to scoff at the law?
Stop parroting liberal garbage. We're not buying it. The only thing you've succeeded at here is making an idiot of yourself.
Yes. Amazing you think I'm defending copyright and not artists' livelihoods under a capitalist system. Copyright is certainly broken, but we do not have socialism or better. The artists do not benefit from people behaving as if capitalism isn't still the defacto machine abusing us all.
If what I've said can be construed as defense of copyright, it's only because artists do not have an alternative, and stealing from them keeps them poor (a distinctly capitalist endeavor, so hilarious coming from you all). What have you proposed except, "Hur dur, yew sownd like librul."
Lmao stop acting like you care about the big bad capitalists. You're just as bad as they are by doing the exact same things they do. Enjoy your privilege.
If it's artists' livelihoods you care about then you are arguing the wrong point. Copyright is not the thing that gives artists money, getting hired is. The problem is not that someone copied an artists work and used it to generate a different picture in the same style. The problem is the people who use those pictures instead of paying artists. I don't think anyone in this instance would use generated images instead of paying artists if they had that availability. The only claim that this instance is harmful to artists that has any weight is that it normalises generated images, but that's circumstantial at best.
Your problem, that artists aren't being paid, is caused by the people not hiring artists. Not some anarchists using their local models for fun. The theft happens when a would be commission gets generated instead, not when the image is processed into the model.
This is the point that you miss when you equate this and capitalists. Capitalists can afford to pay artists to create the art they want, they're just too greedy to do so.
This is at least a reasonable premise, and you seem to understand my core point: artists do real work that deserves compensation. Copyright only matters to me insomuch as it's the currently existing framework artists must operate within. I do not want that to be the case, but my wishes aren't going to change artists' reality today or tomorrow (but the day after? Maybe...).
I disagree with the "local model" argument specifically because normalization is part of the billionaires' strategy. Regular people, who make up the vast majority of users, don't know the difference between ChatGPT, Claude, and some open model hosted by their company or tech savvy nephew. Most will use them interchangeably without a second thought, because it's all a mysterious magic black box.
So while I can see the merits of goofing around at home, putting that stuff out in public is just another piece of that normalization strategy.
My other beef is that even among the open models, a fair number were still trained with data that wasn't consensually given. They benefit from the same processes that created Sora, etc. I'm sure there are people who are trying to create ethical models that can run locally, but it's harder when you can't scrape the entire library of Sony Music or deviantart.
At the end of the day, I want to ensure people (not corporations) are provided for. Capitalism is obviously no solution to that problem, but it is the problem we must soberly face today and tomorrow, and we need to be aware of how what we do, even in silly moments, can have a larger cumulative effect.
Those regular people aren't here. And If they were what would you want them to see? People arguing over "stealing" and "copyright", completely sidestepping the actual point of the conversation like Mystic was. Or people warning each other over using corporate models and replacing artists.
From now on whenever I make something AI related I'm going to say "Don't use corporate AI. Hire actual artists." As the first line to combat this. Because, as I hope you've seen, arguing on whether or not this is stealing will simply go nowhere.
These models exist, and normal people will see generated content as every other platform is full of it. Allow this one space to be about doing image generation right: "No destroying the planet or replacing humans".
As with consent. I think training falls under fair use. You aren't going to be able to get an exact replica from a model anyway so any output I consider transformative, similarly to how a human brain transforms content (although obviously the internals completely different). For me the argument that you need consent to train a model is the same as arguing you need consent to train yourself, or cover a song, or trace over an image. Yes the transformation is mechanical, but if a human was doing all those calculations by hand it would be considered art, and no-one would question if they had the right.
Slight tangent as you mentioned music. I actually like generated music. Like the sound of it. It's got the vibe of melting a bunch of different songs together to make something completely unoriginal but still different. Real music is obviously superior in every way, but when you want something like that one song that's unlike any other and you just wish it were longer, that's what generated music is for. It can't replace any actual musician but it can provide an interesting listening experience... For like an hour at a time before it becomes grating.
But the point I want to make is that generated music does not sound like music. It's something different. So arguing that it's somehow plagiarising just seems silly to me. The model transformed it. It's not the same, audibly.
Apologizing for the status quo is the same as defending it. You are utterly pathetic. You can't claim to be against copyright then turn around and apologize for it because it's the status quo. That's called double-think.
Funny I'm not the one who expects people to bend and obey to liberal ideology because capitalism "exists".
Great, so under your plan, the artists starve while they wait for revolution. What a hero you are.
You can moan about "liberal ideology" all you want, but acting like people aren't trapped by capitalism isn't defeating it, and stealing from people in the cage isn't saving them.
Please tell me a small artist who won a copyright case against a megacorp.
Please tell me how copying is stealing.
Please explain anything in your mind.
No.
That's what I expected.
Making a copy of something isn't stealing. Full stop.
"Nuh uh" isn't an argument. It's not even a syllogism. You're just asserting that as fact.
I've given plenty of examples of how it is stealing from artists, specifically in the case where they have not given that consent, and now it's your turn to provide something even resembling an argument.
It's a prima facie case, so it doesn't need a complex rebuttal. You are just sealioning. While your point is a popular refrain for euro-centric ancaps, it holds no weight here.
And now the ad hominems. You're just a bag of fallacies, aren't you? "It doesn't need a complex rebuttal," is all the proof anyone needs that you don't have an argument. You just don't want to feel bad about being a class traitor.
Think of the starving rent-seekers?
🪞
Wow, and now the cavalry is here with, "No u." Classic.
You claim you don't believe in copyright and that you aren't in favor or it yet you keep calling copyright violations stealing. I find this really funny and hypocritical. Apologizing for the status quo certainly isn't saving anyone. It's called being a liberal. You aren't special in that regard. There's thousands of other liberals just like you apologizing for things as they are.
You miss the point. I would call it stealing if copyright didn't exist, because it is taking the livelihood from artists. If they had their livelihood taken care of, say under a communist system, I wouldn't care.
But you pretending capitalism doesn't exist for them isn't Leftist, it's just delusional.
Also, you calling me a liberal and a hypocrite while you shill for billionaire-controlled AI is rich. Your insults mean nothing, because I see what makes you cheer.
Copying data is not stealing period. Making a copy of 1s and 0s does not deprive people of the work. You cannot steal art online the way someone can steal a painting. This idea of ownership of ideas is insulting to the idea of art. It turns it into a commodity to be sold. Not something to be enjoyed. Real freedom loving anarchist aren't ya...
Explain to me how I "shill for billionare AI controlled by the rich"? The only thing you've shown me so far is that, you apologize for capitalism because of the way things are, which is liberal apologia by definition. And that you dislike AI so you claim that I'm supporting AI companies without actually describing how I'm doing that by use of local stable diffusion models with no subscriptions or ties back to big tech companies.
Would love to hear a real explanation but I doubt I'll get one, this reeks of the same anti-AI brain rot people from Fuck_AI vomit at me and db0 users constantly. AKA people saying I suck Sam Altman's dick. Which is funny because I can't stand Sam Altman or OpenAI.
Is fitting because that is 100% how you are acting. Anarchism isn't like Gender, you don't get to just identify as an anarchist and belay the meaning of what it stands for without people calling you out. Anarchists do not apologize for copyright and ownership of ideas. Ancaps do, but most of us don't consider them anarchists because they're just capitalist libertarians masquerading as anarchists.
In all fairness an argument could be made that using generated images feeds the hype capitalists create around "AI". eg. "Look even anarchists are using it". Obviously they completely ignore the anti-capitalist sentiment or the fact that the models were running on local hardware.
However I don't really think this matters, Our corner of the internet is small and no-one is going to subscribe to gemini because they saw some artwork generated here. Although I guess posting "This was made with locally. Fuck Corporations." below every post wouldn't hurt.
I don't think they're going to be pointing to us as an example. They very strongly dislike the idea of local AIs very much because they have no control over them. They can't charge a subscription fee, they can't force the use of guardrails. They can't even force people to upgrade to new models.
I'm not really sure they would be thrilled about people being empowered to run their own models, which if you look at AI in anarchist spaces is what the majority of people promote.
I never said it did, and it is baffling that you think that's my argument. I don't really fucking care about the data. I care that people are fairly compensated for their work, whatever "fair" means relative to the economic system. Under communism or Democratic Confederalism, that's taken care of by the community's collective work. Under socialism, that's taken care of by something like UBI. Under capitalism, that's supposed to be taken care of solely by The Market™. We have the last one, and the 1's and 0's and their relative scarcity is what gives them Market™ value. Copying reduces scarcity, thereby reducing the value and compensation that artists should be getting.
You don't have to like it for this to still be people's material reality that they must work with right now.
Of course it's insulting. This isn't about copying, it's about ensuring people can eat while stuck in capitalism. Let me say it plainly so you can understand: Capitalism sucks, I don't like it, and neither do you. It does not suddenly stop ceasing to affect people just because a relative few people reject it.
I imagine you still have a job, because you, too, need to buy food and pay rent. You don't defeat capitalism by covering your eyes and pretending it's not there.
You act as if copying exists in a vacuum, and pirating doesn't produce harm. Both are false, so the question is: who are you harming? Corporations? Great, sign me the fuck up. Regular people like artists? You're doing the dirty work of capitalists. They love to see us fighting amongst ourselves, and stealing from each other is just another way to do that.
And so it's not just 1's and 0's when it comes to art (again, in this capitalist's wet dream, because you seem to have trouble remembering context). That's what AI apologists and pirates tell themselves so they don't have to feel bad about stealing an artist's livelihood. It's right up there with, "It's just leveling the playing field," as if artists are some elite group hoarding a skill and not craftsman who have honed their skill for years.
Where did your models come from? Who trained them, and with what data? If it was via the mass copying of artists' work without their consent, then you are fine with using models trained upon stolen work, just like the billionaires who created it.
Just like the billionaires who are practically begging everyone to use AI. And yet here you are, "running your own local models," as if normalization isn't part of billionaires' strategy. You do exactly what they want like a good little pawn, and you don't even realize it.
"No True Scotsman" harder. Anarchists aren't a monolith with one ideology, and you aren't the gatekeeper of Anarchism. I have no idea what you think anarchists are, but some of us realize the consequences of our actions, because we care what those consequences are. Anarchists like you seem to only care about yourselves and what you can get. "Fuck you, got mine." Now which ideology thinks like that...?
If every anarchist thought and acted like you, we'd never have systems like Democratic Confederalism or commun(al)ism, because we'd be too busy fucking each other over to actually achieve what we want.
Accepting that capitalism is right in front of us is not apologia, it's accepting reality, and it's a fact that we have to contend with.
Disengage.