Attached: 1 image
Here's the latest AI slop creator ripping off my content.
This time they ran my script through an AI "podcast" generator (likely the free one by Adobe) and put it under the footage from my latest video.
When I make my videos, I spend hours travelling and filming on-location to get real footage that can't be found anywhere else.
Then these AI slop creators steal it and release it as their own.
About 90% of my exposure to "AI" these days is just slop farms ripping me off.
That’s the interesting part with AI: the most problematic aspects of IP are retained while the defensible aspects are eroded. Normal artists and creatives can do nothing about their work being stolen, while big corporations profit from it and even pretend to have ownership over the new output. It reminds me of this quote about conservatism.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I mean that’s great and all, but intellectual property still isn’t real. My statement is not narrowed to AI. Art can’t be stolen, nor can ideas. They can only be shared and mimicked.
All of my creative and hobbyist contributions are open source, none of them use AI shit in any capacity, and they’re all free to use. Some people even do ‘steal’ my stuff or copy my videos. I don’t care, because intellectual property is not real.
It’s as real as any other social convention. Property only exists at all because we agree not to take each other’s shit. That’s not something fundamental about the Universe that makes physical property different than IP.
What you are saying is, “I didn’t agree to this convention, I don’t avail myself to it, and I may choose not to abide by it.” Which you could also say about cars or any other kind of property. I likewise reject the convention that individuals can be property.
But our convictions and preferences do not change the world. Intellectual property IS real, in the same sense that physical property and slaves are real. All happen to exist due to the same threat of violence.
I agree that there are problems with IP. 40 years ago I was huge into “public domain” software, and I have stayed within that culture as it evolved. The fact that it exists at all undermines your thesis. If there is no such thing as intellectual property, why do you use public or copyleft licenses?
I mean that’s great and all, but intellectual property still isn’t real.
That’s just true for any social construct. I remember feeling smart when I realised this about money at like 12 years old lol.
And as far as caring about it, as long as artists/creatives/journalists need to monetise their output to survive, I’d rather see them protected in some way.
True, I was only saying that artists/… being able to fully own and monetise their work is one of the defensible parts of IP as a concept. I’m not claiming it’s the only possible way to go about it.
Property in general is no more real. Your ability to “own” something is dependent on other people’s acknowledgement of that ownership and the means available to you to prevent others from taking it. In modern society, the state putting in some effort at threatening consequences for what it considers illegitimate seizure of what it acknowledges as your property, is part of those means for most people, but it’s still ultimately something that only exists in people’s heads. Nevertheless, if I were to break into your home and empty it out, I doubt you would just shrug and think “Well, property isn’t real, anyway”.
There are a lot of things that aren’t really “real”; states, laws, money etc., so it’s pretty pointless to try to delegitimise something by insisting it doesn’t fall under some definition of “real”. It’s much more useful to think in terms of what the merits and demerits are of keeping up the illusion. There are certainly a lot of problems with intellectual property, some with the implementation, some more fundamental. At the same time, under the current economic system it’s often the only thing available to creators that allows them to make a living off their work. So if you’re just going to crow “IP bad” without offering alternatives to either IP or the economic system, it’s just going to look like you mean harm towards those creators.
But there’s something more fundamental than IP that’s the problem here. Obviously, NJB doesn’t have the exclusive rights over having an opinion on Toronto’s line 5, and nobody should be restricted in making their own video in which they express their own opinion about line 5. But that’s not what’s happening here; the “creators” of this slop don’t have an opinion on line 5, they’ve probably never even been in Canada. It only exists because NJB is a decently popular YouTube channel and it’s very low-cost to make, in part because of AI, but also because they have NJB’s video to rip off. In other words, they’re trying to profit off somebody else’s labour while potentially reducing how much the original creator is rewarded for their labour. That’s a problem regardless of whether you believe IP to be the way to deal with this or not.
Intellectual property isn’t real.
That’s the interesting part with AI: the most problematic aspects of IP are retained while the defensible aspects are eroded. Normal artists and creatives can do nothing about their work being stolen, while big corporations profit from it and even pretend to have ownership over the new output. It reminds me of this quote about conservatism.
I mean that’s great and all, but intellectual property still isn’t real. My statement is not narrowed to AI. Art can’t be stolen, nor can ideas. They can only be shared and mimicked.
All of my creative and hobbyist contributions are open source, none of them use AI shit in any capacity, and they’re all free to use. Some people even do ‘steal’ my stuff or copy my videos. I don’t care, because intellectual property is not real.
It’s as real as any other social convention. Property only exists at all because we agree not to take each other’s shit. That’s not something fundamental about the Universe that makes physical property different than IP.
What you are saying is, “I didn’t agree to this convention, I don’t avail myself to it, and I may choose not to abide by it.” Which you could also say about cars or any other kind of property. I likewise reject the convention that individuals can be property.
But our convictions and preferences do not change the world. Intellectual property IS real, in the same sense that physical property and slaves are real. All happen to exist due to the same threat of violence.
I agree that there are problems with IP. 40 years ago I was huge into “public domain” software, and I have stayed within that culture as it evolved. The fact that it exists at all undermines your thesis. If there is no such thing as intellectual property, why do you use public or copyleft licenses?
That’s just true for any social construct. I remember feeling smart when I realised this about money at like 12 years old lol.
And as far as caring about it, as long as artists/creatives/journalists need to monetise their output to survive, I’d rather see them protected in some way.
IP doesn’t automatically follow from that.
True, I was only saying that artists/… being able to fully own and monetise their work is one of the defensible parts of IP as a concept. I’m not claiming it’s the only possible way to go about it.
Property in general is no more real. Your ability to “own” something is dependent on other people’s acknowledgement of that ownership and the means available to you to prevent others from taking it. In modern society, the state putting in some effort at threatening consequences for what it considers illegitimate seizure of what it acknowledges as your property, is part of those means for most people, but it’s still ultimately something that only exists in people’s heads. Nevertheless, if I were to break into your home and empty it out, I doubt you would just shrug and think “Well, property isn’t real, anyway”.
There are a lot of things that aren’t really “real”; states, laws, money etc., so it’s pretty pointless to try to delegitimise something by insisting it doesn’t fall under some definition of “real”. It’s much more useful to think in terms of what the merits and demerits are of keeping up the illusion. There are certainly a lot of problems with intellectual property, some with the implementation, some more fundamental. At the same time, under the current economic system it’s often the only thing available to creators that allows them to make a living off their work. So if you’re just going to crow “IP bad” without offering alternatives to either IP or the economic system, it’s just going to look like you mean harm towards those creators.
But there’s something more fundamental than IP that’s the problem here. Obviously, NJB doesn’t have the exclusive rights over having an opinion on Toronto’s line 5, and nobody should be restricted in making their own video in which they express their own opinion about line 5. But that’s not what’s happening here; the “creators” of this slop don’t have an opinion on line 5, they’ve probably never even been in Canada. It only exists because NJB is a decently popular YouTube channel and it’s very low-cost to make, in part because of AI, but also because they have NJB’s video to rip off. In other words, they’re trying to profit off somebody else’s labour while potentially reducing how much the original creator is rewarded for their labour. That’s a problem regardless of whether you believe IP to be the way to deal with this or not.