> What quoted text?

You don't even know what we're discussing: the critique centered around the text of the article that I quoted in my op comment.

"Me me me. My money, my ideas, MY stance"

I've said very little about you, other than asking why you downvoted me. I care about the ideas.. This is what a rational argument is.

I'm not provoked by your "no you..." defense. You are after all arguing about ramen, concretely, and the worry if we don't pay people for their recipes we may never have ramen again.

▲

martin-t 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You don't even know what we're discussing

Stop insulting me.

> I quoted in my op comment.

I considered you meant this but dismissed it because what you said clearly does not follow from it. A recipe takes experimentation - human time and experience. Sure it's often based on other's recipes but those people often gave it to you willingly and it's not like the author is making money from it. OTOH if you collect recipes from other people and make money from publishing them, then those people _do_ deserve most of the money you make. Obviously this gets hard to implement truly fairly, especially if you go multiple steps deep.

> Which ... It ... It ... as evidenced by your glib and punchy response > your language becomes even more provacative > Now tell me how you _really_ feel about the commons. > I've said very little about you

Really?

> I'm not provoked by your "no you..." defense.

Both points were genuine - I don't understand how my view is inconsistent and I clearly demonstrated how yours is. Seeing as we're both arguing about the same thing and have differing views, it's the natural state that at least one of us (possibly both) has an inconsistent view, isn't it? It literally has to be a case of, as you called it "no you".

> You are after all arguing about ramen, concretely

OK, I'll consider this mocking and if I don't get a reasonable reply to my previous points, I don't see any point in continuing.

▲

potsandpans 2 days ago | parent [-]

I apologize on both accounts. To recenter my argument, and restate in an attempt to be less ambiguous:

There is a bit of irony on how this creator has positioned themselves. The website itself presents as very arts-and-crafts, salt of the earth, "human". The crux of the argument I feel exists in the initial quoted text, which I feel is (the ironic part) not very human (collective) at all, and a much more self-centered, pro-individualist.

My observation is that this is what you see typically in conservative reactionary movements. Luddites (the idea of, not the historical narrative which is rich and nuanced) here would be the canonical example: a legitimate reaction to a disruption in a conservative posture. e.g. _the machines are the problem, not the context for which the machines are allowed to exist without equity for our society as a whole_. It misses the forest for the trees.

The example, by extension, is somewhat humorous to me. To eat, is to be human. A person cannot "stop creating recipes", because we literally need food to survive. And so to suggest that any one person might have ownership over the specific combination of ingredients, of which have been discovered and selected and refined through the whole "human project"... is to me, patently absurd.

The inconsistancy that I sense is that we digest the collective knowledge of the world, synthesize it and produce something new. The llm is doing analogous work here, the difference is it doesn't have a human credential associated with it. It's obky loosely analogous, it's not the same thing... it just rhymes.

An llm trained on all of humanities data provides a synthesis of all of our information, readily available to all: I can run an open model on my local machine and have it synthesize for me at whim without big corpo in the equation at all.

To note: I am not making a value judgement here. Instead I'm observing that the _feeling_ expressed by the author is in my opinion not consistent with the intent.

Stated somewhat ungenerously, it's not "for people", it's "for ME to decide who it's for."

	▲	martin-t 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It misses the forest for the trees. Yes, this is something I can agree with - many people are aware of societal issues in the small (abusive people they interact with personally, specific instances of injustice which affect them personally) but are unable or unwilling to see the bigger picture and that those instances are just the result of how the system is setup and allowed to exist. > to suggest that any one person might have ownership over the specific combination of ingredients ... patently absurd. I don't think that's what the author is trying to say. How I understand it (and my view as well) is that LLM take "content" from multiple people and mix it together in a way which erases authorship. As a result 1) any individuality is lost 2) the formerly human to human interaction is now replaced by both humans interacting with a middleman and at least one of them not consensually. My addition: on top of that the middleman expects to get paid, despite not doing any original work and despite harming the people whose "content" it reproduces. And that is parasitic behavior. > I can run an open model on my local machine and have it synthesize for me at whim without big corpo in the equation at all. Yes, that removes the parasitic middleman but not the issue that other people's work is being plagiarized and/or used in a way that never consented to. For example, I published a bunch of code under GPL or AGPL because I want my users to have the right to inspect and modify the code and more importantly, I want that right to extend to anything build on top of that work. A byproduct is that the copyleft licenses seem to be considered toxic by many corporations so they won't touch it with a ten foot pole and won't make money off my free work. > Stated somewhat ungenerously, it's not "for people", it's "for ME to decide who it's for." And I don't think there's anything wrong with either approach. Specifically, the second extends to everyone. If I get to decide how others can use my work, others get the same right and we all benefit in return. Cooperation should be based on mutual agreement, not be forced. Even if somebody found a cure for all the cancers, I don't think society has any right to take it from them or force them to publish it. Instead, if society at large wants it that much, it should offer sufficient reward so that both sides come to an agreement.