I have to disagree with you here. In a manor of speaking at this point all creatives are thieves if this is the case. If you are an artist that draws in the "anime" style then you could be considered a thief of all the influences that that inspired you. I didn't steal from the authors that inspired me to start writing. AI is not stealing your art. period. In the exact same way you didn't steal Andy Warhols' art and the same way I didn't steal Piers Anthonys' writing.
The cotton gin took countless jobs from farm hands all over the world. Is that a good thing? No, its not. But you have affordable comfortable underwear because of it.
I am not saying don't be mad about AI art. I am saying you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, all art takes inspiration from other art. And reusing ideas is a natural part of the arts anyways; that's why the public domain has been a legal concept since Rome. But even then, at least artists are making money within the machinework of corporations rather than a machine making money for a machine. The aesthetic ethics don't really matter in the long run; it's the economic ethics that do.
The cotton gin didn't replace jobs; it replaced slavery. It did the opposite of what AI is doing: giving people jobs instead of making them nonexistent. The two situations are not even relatable.
AI might create some jobs, but a lot of jobs will be lost because of it. That might not be a bad thing if we can find an economic solution to it (the current top candidate theory is
Fully Automated Luxury Communism), but in the meantime, we need to figure out how to make the current system survive without collapsing on itself.
"No one gives a damn about the survival of a corporation's "legal personhood". They aren't human, and they have more money than some countries." So the dude that gets a paycheck working as a cleaner or security for this corporation isn't human? Got it.
Guess Ubisoft going under just hurts the CEO and his friends and NO ONE ELSE huh
Janitors can always work at another company or government institution or whatever. That's a transferable skill. Same for security. And they were never well paid to begin with. (Note: You just happened to choose the two people who could do much better in the public sector.)
Ubisoft won't go under. They are a capitalist god, and the public will not stop paying them tribute. Like I said, piracy helps, not hinders, corporations in the arts. They even benefit from the public domain (Gisnep especially, and they are the biggest of the eldritch abominations). They aren't losing money when they lose an individual customer; they only gain.
And "legal personhood" refers to the corporation, not the employees. It's the legal term that makes it so corporations never go to jail or get the death penalty but humans do for much less serious crime than what corporations commit. It's generally considered BS by anyone who has studied corporate corruption. You could have asked for clarification about the term instead of making a brash assumption that I'm somehow insulting actual people, especially because my whole argument is about protecting actual people. (I mentioned that literally in the next sentence after that one.)
That is a completely different situation from not being able to get a job. Nobody is firing Ubisoft and replacing them with Ubisoft.
Oh, and here's
a link to the forum's rules, and a hat to keep you warm:
), it's about survival.
