Post

people are always saying anti-AI arguments don’t understand the full nuances of the technology. which is correct. but only because it stole everyone’s work, exists solely to get you fired, has made the entire internet unusable and has been forced on everyone without consent

what definition of "theft" is being used here though

I usually think of prim accumulation as the process by which things become capital. To become capital requires people, both the state and the people-proper to respect the rules of bourgeois ownership, the legal fictions that say "this capitalist owns this capital".

Now, clearly, there is a commercial character to AI output that "my posts I wrote" did not previously have, but my posts were still, legally, my property, and I could have chosen to extend their commercial character by putting them behind a paywall. Did this change?

No, both to the state and the people I still legally own my posts acc'ing to the rules of b8s ownership. OTOH, for ex, when what were previsly common lands were expr'iated to landlords, common folk no longer had the *right* to work those lands-- they were brought *into* the system of b8s ownership.

makes sense. im very pedantic about definitions and stuff. its definitely making a lot of things worse but the whole "theft" framing bugs me

What do you want it referred to, to lay persons?

idk with multiple words. not everything has to be snappy. rhetorical precision & accuracy matter a lot in getting your point across