However it generates only a fraction of the traffic that would otherwise reach twitter, and also makes it useless as it cannot be data harvested.

We need to bring back -wranglers

Logwranglers

Fishwranglers

Planewranglers

Roofwranglers

Garbagewranglers

Steelwranglers

Truckwranglers

No take means that someone else doesn't have it. The word you want is copy or learn or inspire. I don't play semantic games. I explain exactly why I reject your premises, even though you've by now discarded so many positions already and the last thing you got left is desperately trying to treat ideas like material goods. It think this discussion has run its course.

Conversion of an idea from one physical medium to another means there is something that is independent of those physical media. You can call it "information" if you like. Claiming that this doesn't exist is absurd.

I'm not claiming "information" doesn't exist. I'm claiming you cannot "take" information in way that jives with the meaning of "take". I was pretty clear with my comment ealier about this. You can copy, or internalize information, but you cannot claim it for yourself once you share it. It then belongs to everyone who knows it.

That you can copy something from one medium to another proves that immaterial goods exist.

No? You're copying a sequence of bits. It's very material. They take storage and modify hardware. Are "immaterial goods" something that can only exists in digital media, in your mind, or do you have any examples of an "immaterial good" that can exist outside of digital storage? Is a book "immaterial good"? Is a sheet of music? I'm sorry but this all sounds quite absurd.

This is a well established philosophical idea and not something I am making up here 🤷

Sounds like something vague and nothing that I'd use to create ethical imperative around. nevermind trying to enforce those ethics on others who don't accept the premises.

So what is an immaterial good in your opinion?

There is no such thing. Or if you want to define one such thing, then one cannot "take" it due to the fact that it's immaterial.

You are either claiming that immaterial goods do not exists, which really doesn't make much sense

That's exactly what I claim. There is no such thing. Of course, we're humans. We can define anything we want. I can assume what you mean by that, but if I assume correctly, then you cannot "take" them!

It seems to me you're just making an egregious equivocation fallacy based on your own personal definitions that you assume everyone shares with you.

No, I am not making that argument. Developing skills is labour. Taking those skills without fully compensating the person that developed those skills is labour theft. A LLM is not developing its own skills, it is distilling the skills embodied in the works of humans, and those humans are neither asked if they are ok with that nor are they compensated for their labour.

You're also not "taking" those skills. That's not what those words means. The artist still has those skills. Capitalists aren't bad because they copy workers labour. They're bad because they're exploiting it. You make a product, the capitalist sells it and gives out only part of it. Stop equivocating completely different things ffs.

. Therefore copyright is always wrong

Great.So there's no need for you to mention "transferring copyrights" on what's wrong with it. It is always wrong. We agree. So any "Rights to copy" are wrong. And by extension any "Rights to inspect or learn from".

but being against copyright doesn't mean you are ok with anyone taking artistic goods that people created.

And since we're not "taking" anything away, we agree again.

Glad we finally see eye to eye.

The LLM is not appropriating the skills, because the artist still has those skills. That's not how appropriation works either. It isn't anymore than any other artist getting inspired by and redoing your art style is "appropriating your skills" either.

You are making the argument that anything that makes different art easier is deskilling those who invested in those skills. It's not true. The only way one could even claim to appropriate art is by faking attribution.

People making some images to enjoy on their own are expropriating artists whose styles they copy is an absurd statement on its face.

and understand the issues with copyright very well; one of which is corporations appropriating the embodied skill of goods produced by artists via copyright transfer.

Clearly not well enough, otherwise you wouldn't be making an argument right now that if copyright transfer wasn't possible, copyrights would be just fine and dandy.

Most of the labour that goes into art is immaterial by definition. You are seriously trying to reduce art to the physical paint on a canvas?

Yes I am seriously reducing that specific type of art into physical paint on a cavnas. I didn't stop them doing labour. I didn't steal their canvas. They still retain the skills they trained doing it. If it's digital they can still see and share their original digital image. I didn't take away shit! They lost nothing except these fantasy rights you assigned to them by fiat.

You know who else argues in reductive ways like that about appropriating the fruits of labour? Capitalists...

Non sequitur.

I am not arguing that there is some sort of natural law that forbids you to do something, but rather that anarchist principles say that just because you can take something

Copying is not "taking" anymore than it is "stealing". And training LLMs is even less than copying, nevermind "taking". The most unprivileged person can see an image and be inspired by it to make a derivative in their own excrement if they have to. And I'll be damned if I let the copyright-brained tell them "Uhm, achsually, you need to seek permission from the artist first"

Again, this isn't about copyright. Why do you keep bringing up this strawman argument?

Because you're making arguments that are the same that support copyrights and worse, go even further than them by asserting rights to control who is even allowed to be inspired and make derivatives of it.

Is it really that hard to understand that artists have a moral right to the fruits of their labor?

Nobody took their labor away. They still have their art. Or are you asserting also "intellectual property" as if it's a thing that would exist in anarchism?

Of course there are certain contexts where exceptions can be made, and you can make an argument that in certain situations the general good outweights the moral rights of an individuum

It is very anarchist to not allow to set up rights that determine what I can do with the content I've seen. It's not up to you to grant me "exceptions". This is copyrights-brain.

the moral rights of an individuum

What the fuck does this even mean? Are you asserting some sort of natural law of ethics?

Very funny to post this in a post where vigorous debate on this subject is clearly visible.

We do ban extremely toxic people who can't help themselves from reacting with outright bigotry and attempted bullying, but liars like you like to misrepresent that as us banning all dissent. It it is funny that you decided to post this in the face of all evidence.

Trying to exclude people from anarchist communities because they don't respect copyrights is extremely fucked up.

There's no consent issue here. The act of copying and modifying art doesn't affect the artist. This is copyright-brain. Once you shared art it's you don't get to control how it's consumed. Or do we need consent to modify art? How about parody? How about parody which is extremely against the artist themselves? How about being inspired by it?

The only reason copying or making LLMs out of art can be argued harms the artist is because of the effects of capitalism.