site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

23
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As I already stated, the technicalities of what constitutes "copying" or not are quite beside the point.

I mean, the whole subthread started from your comment:

but when they copy art on the other hand...

Which I guess you're walking back from with your further clarification in this post, I suppose.

Similar to how Microsoft can say "here are some free bits, just don't use them for enterprise software development", an artist should be able to say "here are some free bits, just don't use them to train an AI model". The fact that the artist's bits represent an image rather than a compiled binary doesn't seem like a relevant difference.

This is a good point, and I agree that the artist should be able to say that. Any artist who publishes their art somewhere where viewers agree to license that demands as such before viewing that artwork - much like Microsoft has the end user "sign" a license agreement at some point before running their free software - is on solid ethical (and legal I think, though IANAL) grounds to complain if someone uses it for AI art model training. Plenty of artists already do a similar thing with paid art on places like Patreon where the end user has to agree not to share the art with anyone else.

If they publish it on a public forum, then that's a different matter. They don't get to publish something publicly for free public consumption and demand that others don't view their art and take inspiration from them; that'd be having their cake and eating it too.

I have to wonder how much of this is "your first mistake was posting anything publicly on the internet." Even back in the 2000's and 2010's, people tried to enforce what were weak ethical norms for art (no tracing, no reuploading without permission). Ultimately, though, there aren't actual legal mechanisms beyond DMCA takedowns.