>>546078497
This is always such a retarded argument.
AI models do not have access to their own training data. Nowhere in the AI's context do any of these people's art actually exist.
Any claim to intellectual property infringement would be like if I saw a painting once, forgot about it a year later, then produced something vaguely like it with no memory of where I got the inspiration from, then got slapped with an IP theft charge. It's asinine.

>>546078497
>>546078962
Intellectual property is the big retard cock of the state trying to fuck your brain and steal your language.

It couldn't be more communist if it tried.

>It's property because... it is okay
it's not
information is the real property of the person who has it
it is their right to duplicate, modify, and reproduce information as they wish

if you want to profit off information do not duplicate it even once. limit people to physical viewings in controlled circumstances, or just accept that information is free and should be pursued for the love of the game.
>BUT THEN I WONT MAKE AS MUCH MONEY
that's why your job should actually contribute to real wealth ie: producing physical goods and real life services. collecting royalties for years because you worked once is does not make any sense as a job. why should it? you want to have more money without working for it? grow up.
>but the world is le tough, i need money to protect myself from.... dajoos!
yes because it's inhabited by people who want to have more money without working for it. people who think like you. it only takes one to set off a chain reaction of gypping and jewing.

>>546079340
>Oi m8 you don't have a loicense for those thoughts
>let alone acting on them
>in the name of the queen and allah i am placing you under arrest for thought theft
>one of the worst thought crimes

>>546078962
Aspects of it ARE in training data .

>>546079340
It's the opposite

>>546080049
Which the consumer side model has no access to.

>>546079485
>real wealth ie: producing physical goods
Begging the question.
Nice wall of text though.

>>546080102
>Which the consumer side model has no access to.
What they have access to is also an aspect of their work.

>>546080199
It's literally not. What the model does have access to is a matrix of weights determining the probability of a token being selected given the previously selected tokens.
It's about as much "an aspect of the artist's work" as the collection of neuron connections that your brain vaguely associates with a painting you forgot about 3 years later.

>>546080175
>That's not proper formal debate
It is, however, right.

>>546080339
>comparing value of IP converted converted into info for AI
What is your metric?

>>546080608
>It is, however, right.
No.
Per Kinsella (lmk if you have different reasoning):
-defines property as rivalrous (begging the question)
-defines intellectual works "ip" as not property since they cannot be policed (special pleading)

I reasoned from a deeper premise, in the following, that supports the validity of physical property:

https://abidode.substack.com/publish/post/224373138

>>546078497
does anyone remember when 3D printing came out and no one said shit about sculptors?

>>546078497
>Wake up one morning
>I want to do X
>Shekel Goldwitz on behalf of Silversteinberg Greenblatt mails a cease and desist
>Uhm ackshually I thought of X first, so you are barred from doing it ever
Yeah that makes total fucking sense.

Arguing IP is property while using stolen art is wild

>>546081775
>does anyone remember when 3D printing came out and no one said shit about sculptors?
Were people duplicating?

intellectual property only makes sense in the for-profit capitalist imperialist model

human knowledge should be collective and constantly going forward. this is like when corporations tried trademarking memes

how would life look like if pythagoras and whoever paywalled their formulas and discoveries

If you flip a coin twice, you still have a 25% chance of failing both times. OP has American education levels