Post by @leeloo@c.im

2026-07-15 13:10 UTC

@alessandro@cosocial.ca @astronomerritt@hachyderm.io First of all, if you want to make that argument, get it right. Piracy is armed robbery on the high seas. But second: You are only half right. The argument has always been that unlike theft, copying leaves the original in place, so nobody lost anything. Their argument was then "lost sales", to which the counter argument was that the teenager with 100 GB of MP3s would never have been able to afford half a ton of CDs on their allowance. But in this case, the AI (b|t)rillionaires would absolutely have been able to pay the artists they have stolen from, so the lost sales argument is absolutely valid. And by design, it's not just lost sales either, it's lost jobs and basically theft of our entire society - if not now, that's absolutely their end goal.

Replies (2)

@alessandro@cosocial.ca 2026-07-15 13:20

@leeloo@c.im I agree from the tech bros' POV, but we're talking about the end user here. It seems a bit much to accuse anybody who uses AI of theft when it's more like second-degree piracy. I don't think that framing is helpful in getting people to take a step back and reevaluate their usage - but maybe I'm just tone policing, IDK @astronomerritt@hachyderm.io

Open ##5263448
@kagan@wandering.shop 2026-07-15 16:11

@leeloo@c.im @alessandro@cosocial.ca @astronomerritt@hachyderm.io I want to amplify that bit about "theft of our entire society", because it points at what I was thinking back at "leaves the original in place, so nobody lost anything." The proliferation of "AI" slop *does* harm the original art. It's created an environment where now everyone's on guard when they view images or read things, and frequently accuse human creations of being slop, incorrectly. It's stolen people's trust in artistic creation.

Open ##5263460