Actually let me analyze again your comment here: I thought you were right at first but thinking about it not really.
First let me address : I didn’t know about RIAA, this kind of paternalistic way of addressing people is not good in any way. We aren’t all USA-centric (like you?).
Then about the “steal” argument:
it is a vocabulary used for century by Marxist organizations about the value taken by the bourgeoisie from the proletariat work.
the argument of “copying is OK” is missing the point : any FOSS dev/organization I know would gladly give their work to you, individual. But not to big tech to commercialize it and make extreme amount of money, as well as steering conversation towards fascism in the process. While also having an amazingly big impact on the environment.
“both have it afterwards” is also a fallacy : any work done on computer can be seen like this : if your an accountant and you boss copy your accounting sheets and do not pay you, it is not stealing? You both have the file, for you it won’t make you any money, he will. Big tech taking FOSS code for their profit is not piracy as of individual accessing cultural product they cannot afford in the first place. And if you make profit from piracy this is a whole other discussion I would gladly here your thoughts about it.
Private property is theft. “Intellectual property” is a form of private property. It exclusively benefits the bourgeois.
Regarding your third bullet point: Try your example again, but this time the boss doesn’t copy the file. It’s still labor theft. The copying is irrelevant.
Are you saying I am right then? I feel you think of something but it is not clearly getting to me here.
it's labor theft -> hence the term steal I was using
copying is irrelevant -> so I was right? the labor theft of big tech in order to sell LLM is wrong on many level and we should fight against it.
Do you at least see that, to me, what you just said is validating my points?
Also if anyone else (not to you @m532): “AI” (in reality chatbot or generative AI) should be made by the people for the people, and FOSS ideology (can we say Librism in English?) have always, and still mostly is, against the closed-source (close dataset to be precise here) nature of current big-tech AI. This was already a problem 8 years ago when the space started to get filled with “scientific” paper that didn’t disclose code/data (sometime just code but still insufficient) hence couldn’t be reproduce while sometimes having wild claims. We shouldn’t give so much credit, attention, money to those fascists in charge of selling as much LLM as possible, whatever human, economic and environment costs.
if your an accountant and you boss copy your accounting sheets and do not pay you, it is not stealing? You both have the file, for you it won’t make you any money,
The copying part is gone, yet the problem stays the same, so the copying was never the problem.
you talked about labor theft, why do you think the boss should pay you? An I am not saying “should” as society should be like that, I agree with no private property and no money -> should as right now is it OK or not to make money from other people works : this is exploitation.
I argue that the “steal” of today’s LLM is the same exploitation of worker as usually described, here outside the social contract of librism and free software.
Stealing: when you don’t have it anymore afterwards.
Copying: when both have it afterwards
The RIAA’s propaganda campaign was sadly very successful.
You’re right, I said “steal” as it was the most common word, the right one was “exploiting”. Fixing it.
Actually let me analyze again your comment here: I thought you were right at first but thinking about it not really.
First let me address : I didn’t know about RIAA, this kind of paternalistic way of addressing people is not good in any way. We aren’t all USA-centric (like you?).
Then about the “steal” argument:
Private property is theft. “Intellectual property” is a form of private property. It exclusively benefits the bourgeois.
Regarding your third bullet point: Try your example again, but this time the boss doesn’t copy the file. It’s still labor theft. The copying is irrelevant.
Are you saying I am right then? I feel you think of something but it is not clearly getting to me here.
it's labor theft-> hence the termstealI was usingcopying is irrelevant-> so I was right? the labor theft of big tech in order to sell LLM is wrong on many level and we should fight against it.Do you at least see that, to me, what you just said is validating my points?
Also if anyone else (not to you @m532): “AI” (in reality chatbot or generative AI) should be made by the people for the people, and FOSS ideology (can we say Librism in English?) have always, and still mostly is, against the closed-source (close dataset to be precise here) nature of current big-tech AI. This was already a problem 8 years ago when the space started to get filled with “scientific” paper that didn’t disclose code/data (sometime just code but still insufficient) hence couldn’t be reproduce while sometimes having wild claims. We shouldn’t give so much credit, attention, money to those fascists in charge of selling as much LLM as possible, whatever human, economic and environment costs.
Let me try that again:
The copying part is gone, yet the problem stays the same, so the copying was never the problem.
you talked about labor theft, why do you think the boss should pay you? An I am not saying “should” as society should be like that, I agree with no private property and no money -> should as right now is it OK or not to make money from other people works : this is exploitation.
I argue that the “steal” of today’s LLM is the same exploitation of worker as usually described, here outside the social contract of librism and free software.