Okay, finally, this makes more sense; I think you mislabeled the post as “cause and effect” when you’re really talking about ownership of property. Now this we could talk about endlessly, since it’s been such a hot topic with AI’s copyright-dodging.
A good ethical example I think of is Adobe InDesign (if I recall correctly), which only trains its “AI” models on content that is specifically AI-crawl-approved. I personally think the only other ethical approach to “AI” is open-source models like Meta’s Llama. All others are thievery.
Another example of endless debate is publishing houses or boards of companies, particularly of AAA games, as in how much money middle and upper management and the C-Suite should get for the hard work done by the developers. It’s been tearing apart the video game industry over the years on an exponential basis.
Generally speaking, though, for physical media like the artwork you describe, the workers get their dues, though probably disproportionately (especially when it comes to apparel made overseas, phones…). This stuff is very relevant in today’s politics with the tariffs going on; while they’re unpopular and could certainly be executed in better, alternative ways (like providing subsidies to make things at home instead), overseas workers in China, India, etc. are tremendously, objectively overdue on their wages.
given the option to claim ownership, to assert that narrative where I profit, even though that narrative isn’t really relatively strong, I will.
So you don’t care to help fight this mindset and right wrongs?
Yes, I think that the concept of cause-effect is inherently broken (tho useful, yes) and therefore the concept of ownership is broken. The game is broken.
I demand greater rigor from the latter because it is the system by which we run our society etc.
What is the proper approach to winning a broken game?
Okay, finally, this makes more sense; I think you mislabeled the post as “cause and effect” when you’re really talking about ownership of property. Now this we could talk about endlessly, since it’s been such a hot topic with AI’s copyright-dodging.
A good ethical example I think of is Adobe InDesign (if I recall correctly), which only trains its “AI” models on content that is specifically AI-crawl-approved. I personally think the only other ethical approach to “AI” is open-source models like Meta’s Llama. All others are thievery.
Another example of endless debate is publishing houses or boards of companies, particularly of AAA games, as in how much money middle and upper management and the C-Suite should get for the hard work done by the developers. It’s been tearing apart the video game industry over the years on an exponential basis.
Generally speaking, though, for physical media like the artwork you describe, the workers get their dues, though probably disproportionately (especially when it comes to apparel made overseas, phones…). This stuff is very relevant in today’s politics with the tariffs going on; while they’re unpopular and could certainly be executed in better, alternative ways (like providing subsidies to make things at home instead), overseas workers in China, India, etc. are tremendously, objectively overdue on their wages.
So you don’t care to help fight this mindset and right wrongs?
Yes, I think that the concept of cause-effect is inherently broken (tho useful, yes) and therefore the concept of ownership is broken. The game is broken.
I demand greater rigor from the latter because it is the system by which we run our society etc.
What is the proper approach to winning a broken game?