@@LiquidZulu this is true but i don’t see it being very worthwhile. a lot of your channel revolves around debate so i’d essentially just be giving you content, right?
@@blearoyd You can get content out of it as well, there is no reason that it can't be mutually-beneficial. After all, you have already made some content based on my video (in addition to other videos on the AI topic), why not more?
Starting from nothing and learning to make something that at least you are proud of is a grind that a lot of people miss the value in. So many people seem to think that a talent is a gift, its just energy! If you're interested in something you'll learn about it intentionally or not, when you make the choice this is something I do you slowly get better. Developing an eye is a skill for sure, but I see great value in starting from nothing and struggling to gain a firm understanding of the subject, you will understand it deeper and be able to gain more from your chosen skills!
I disagree with you but this video was very rational and well made. The only thing I would say is saying that Zulu doesn't care about the disabled is unfair
@@Kalakakku_ i did get emotional during that section because i didn’t like the assumptions being made about people like Paul Alexander. but simply using AI for ideation isn’t something i’m against, just exploitation through for-profit models. in any case, i don’t think either of us can speak for the entirety of the disabled community just because we both know disabled people
It's a good thing there's people willing to put together well researched, insightful, in-depth rebuttals to AI art like this because I still refuse to go deeper than asking "Show me an AI generated project that doesn't require comparison to an existing IP (like Star Wars, shonen anime, etc) to be explained and features a human women over the age of 30 that doesn't look like Elsa from Frozen" Cause goddamn it really seems like 90% AI art is "Cyberpunk Disney girl pouts at a rainstrom"
Sometimes being made aware of a double standard will force you to choose something and you can reach a higher value more "full self" state! The more you understand your values, the more you, you are!
Hey there! I'm an artist, but I also read a lot of philosophy and economics, and I have actually worked in a trade (electrical). I'm also a friend of Zulu(in fact, some of my art is featured in his video), so that's how I was introduced here. I actually quite like your channel, I always respect people who do art analysis and tutorials. I actively look out for good tutorials to learn from and improve my process. Your channel is very approachable, and I have friends who want to get into art that I am likely to direct your way. On the topic of this video, I think I could clarify certain things that may have been confusing because they are grounded in the philosophical perspective Zulu applies, which is heterodox to ordinary assumptions. I hope my comment is helpful and enspiriting, rather than burdensome - I suspect from the description "I never want to hear another pro-ai argument again." that you find this quite tiresome. But I think I could do something helpful to you by providing context for some of the statements made by Zulu and others in response to this video. I was going to go through and respond to particular timestamps, but I felt like my responses came off adversarial, rather than contextual, so I will instead try to make general statements: One thing that you may have realized following your debate with Zulu is that he is arguing that morality and law are objective, rather than subjective or positive. What he means by this is that there are universally correct claims about how humans should act, and how conflicts over scarce means should be resolved. This is the way Zulu is extremely critical of the status quo - intellectual property is not "law" because it is actually a violation of natural rights. In the video, you explicitly state the claim that morality is subjective, which I suspect reveals deeper philosophical differences between you and Zulu than your opinion on AI art and governance. On the notion of a double standard between AI being easy to use and being difficult to use, and the topic of opportunity cost, I think this misunderstands the point. Like any technological advancement, the process becomes easier in certain aspects, but unaffected in other aspects. My good tools made working as an electrician easier, but it did not trivialize the vocation. It made a specific part of the process more rapid, and as such contributed to the overall efficiency. Similarly, generative AI tools make parts of the process easier, but they do not trivialize the vocation. For the same reason the gradient tool in CSP does not trivialize the profession, or even digital art programs themselves. They make parts of the process easier, more accessible. When it comes to opportunity cost, it is not that it will make everything possible to everyone, but that it is a gradual improvement. Opportunity costs obviously cannot be reduced to zero, because we are beings with finite time in a world of scarce means. But the development of tools and capital is precisely how I am not condemned to the grueling labours of my ancestors, who lived as serfs or slaves. Another thing I think Zulu is sensitive to that you aren't is the notion of "regulation" being a form of aggression, rather than a societal agreement or negotiation of some sort. State rules and regulations are not passed by unanimous consent, and they apply to people regardless of whether they consent to them. As such, the state will necessarily enforce these regulations on people, with the ultimate threat of violence. This came up during the debate, and I feel like it was a major point of disconnection, and may continue to be. I think it takes a horrifying shock to realize that "regulations" are not just a benign way of making people comply with some standard, but actually entail eventual threats of ultimate violence. People *are* thrown in prison and even killed for "violating regulations", it is not fantastical, it is commonplace. Overall, I'm happy to see the resentment over this whole debate becoming less powerful, and that people can have reasonable conversations about it. Although I do feel like it's still upsetting that people try to "mind read" each other and claim people are being "entitled" or "unempathetic", because I think those complaints are belittling and insulting, from both sides.
@@SuperBoyboys hi, thanks for the interest in my channel. i recently uploaded my version of the debate which i highly recommend watching as it addresses some of your points and clarifies some of mine that i don’t feel were worded well enough during the live call
@@blearoyd Thanks for the response! I'll take a look, and I might elaborate further. My intent with my comment isn't necessarily to make a point, but to contextualize some of the statements that get made. It might be better for me to focus on the economics side of that discussion, since that's something I've read quite a lot on. Maybe I'll make that comment on your version of the debate VOD. But I feel like I'm detecting that you find this whole discussion to be rather vexing, rather than stimulating. So I'll ask if you'd prefer not to hear more about it, since I don't want to write something dense and didactic if it would only cause you grief.
Just right off the bat, I can tell you make the fallacy of equivocating law with morality when you clearly subscribe to the legal positivist view of law. That is, you aren't making a concrete moral argument other than "if it's legal it's good, if it's good it's legal" etc. You also repeatedly make a labour theory of value fallacy. Just because you worked hard that does not entitle you to the wealth and property of others, just because you are the first to discover something that does not give you an inherent right to restrict others from taking advantage of that discovery.
i've gotten the comment of "morality and legality are separate" a few times now so i have to ask: if someone verbally harasses someone else to the point of su*c*de (and there's evidence of this: texts, email, etc) who's responsible for that death, the harasser or the person who took their own life?
@@blearoyd You're missing the point here. The doctrine of legal positivism is the view that law is spoken ("posited") into existence and, as such, the law is whatever is proclaimed by whoever "created" the law, i.e. completely subjective and arbitrary. This view is opposite to that of natural law theory, the view that law is derived from ethical principles or other observations on human nature or the agency of moral beings. In that sense, law is not "created", but discovered through enquiry. There are more than one natural law theories though, the best known ones being the Thomist, Lockean, and Rothbardian theories of natural law. I'm not saying that law and ethics are separate to each other, my view is that law and ethics ought to be in alignment, and law that is not ethical is not law, properly speaking. In that sense, while I can make a claim to the effect of "it is illegal, therefore it's wrong", YOU cannot. What I am saying, however, is that since your view on law is positivist, then any attempt made by you to argue that something is wrong because it is illegal is not a proper ethical or moral claim, instead you should structure your argument around the ethical/moral PRINCIPLE that you think that law is derived from, otherwise any claims you make about the "goodness" or "badness" of something being illegal is invalid. And how is the chain of causality between communication and s---ide determined? If I called you a poopy butthead right now, and you decided to do **that** tomorrow, am I then liable for your demise?
@@connoisseurofcookies2047 as i express near the start of my video, the law is not static and is ever-changing. everything should be questioned. and as i said during the live call with zulu, i'm open to the idea of a copyright-free world, even though i'd have concerns. i still believe Fair Use to be a reasonable model to follow when attempting to profit off someone else's work in some form. i don't like exploitation whether it's towards artists, scientists or mathematicians. (and there's different degrees of harassment just as there's different degrees of murder)
@@lights473 i can't agree outright because i have several questions as to how this all works. you can tell him to expect an email from me within the next day or so
The part about him claiming AI's learn the same humans do is kind of insane tbh. An AI has no rational soul. It can not find the universal in the particular. At least this is how I see it
The human intellect is geared torwards the aquisition of knowledge and learning language. AIs need a gazillion instances of something to be capable of emulating what a human can do after seeing 2-3 instances of that something.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF exactly. you can point to a dog and tell a toddler that's what a dog looks like and they'll understand with just a few more examples. sure, there may be a margin of error: they may think a cat is also a dog until you point out that dogs have longer snouts but they'll understand the distinction with very little guidance
Figured I'd delete my other comment, way too long. Apologies on a needless essay. I suppose I'd have a few things worth saying. First, you seem to slightly misunderstand his point on scarcity. It's not that you can't steal something infinitely reproducible, as a stick is practically that yet can be stolen, but that a copy of something isn't stealing it, as both parties have what they own, no one is deprived when a copy is made. When it comes to AI artists lacking empathy, are you sure that's actually the case? One could say it lacks empathy to enforce copyright, as punishing someone for selling what they own, like an image of Spider-Man, is immoral. It seems like your own psychological projection, and emotional thinking clouding your judgement, because your emotions are better than AI user emotions, because your emotions say so. Your dismissal of Disney threatening legal action against a daycare center seems to be devoid of empathy, Universal Studios and Hanna-Barbera Productions stepping up doesn't change what Disney did. See how this goes both ways? Do you actually think LiquidZulu doesn't care about disabled people? I didn't expect you to be a mind reader. And for you to expect, perhaps even demand, disabled people make art the hard way once again seems devoid of empathy. Your conclusion also seems to be psychological projection. And when it comes to human flourishing, perhaps not the best example, but do you think refugees being given jobs increases human flourishing? If yes, you gave an example earlier in the video where companies hired refugees and immigrants to do data labeling.
i'll just agree it's not "theft". don't really care about that part. i also agree that this goes both ways. meaning if you're not willing to admit that platforms avoiding having to license out material by continually sneaking things into their TOS is morally wrong then i get to say that Disney and Nintendo are allowed to enforce their own IPs however they want. the disabled argument is, at best, a stalemate. while i can't argue that there aren't disabled people who find generative ai very useful there are also *plenty* of disabled people who end up in creative careers *because* they can't work a manual labour job or a regular 9-5 and who share all the same concerns about ai that the rest of the art community does. no, i don't consider refugees having to choose between a $2/hr wage/ poor work conditions and starvation when the companies employing them have the means to provide more to be "flourishing"
@@blearoyd Understandable. When did I not admit anything? I think legally they do get to enforce what they please, the point itself is morality which is in contention with legality here. There was also another example I'm surprised wasn't brought up where Disney prevented a father from having Spider-Man on his son's gravestone in 2019. Is this moral to you? Understandable. I wouldn't be aware of $2 per hour wages, but I'll believe it on the spot. Although it's still their choice, and I'm surprised you'd consider poor working conditions to not be an improvement compared to starving to death. I suppose we have a different idea on human flourishing.
@@itsyaboidaniel2919 i agree that example is amoral and that Disney lawyers are stupid for not understanding how PR works. just as it's amoral for online platforms to exploit the labour of its users for profit. again, both ways. i'm quoting $2/hr from Jimmy McGee's vid which i clipped for my video, so you can take a look at his references if you want. your willingness to defend comically massive wealth disparity tells me that yes, our definitions do differ.
@@blearoyd Amoral? As in morality doesn't apply? Or did you mean immoral? I would also make a distinction with your example. Copyright is used in action against someone else. Exploiting benefits of labor already provided for free is not an action against someone. One is aggression, one is maximizing benefit in a selfish manner. I wouldn't say I defended anything, only that not starving to death is an improvement over starving to death, and thus an improvement on flourishing, not to be confused with an outright good life, simply getting from 1/10 to 2/10. I can easily agree they should be paid more, I think they should be. Though if there's something more specific you'd want or expect, I think you might as well make it clear.
@@itsyaboidaniel2919 yes, typo. i meant immoral. and if we're going to get pedantic then i could say that ai models using artist's brand names in datasets (while not compensating them in any way) leading to users undercutting said artists by mass-producing images for cheap is financially harmful. Disney not permitting spider man on a gravestone is morally wrong but not financially harmful. not that any of this should matter because i'm saying both things are bad and you still want to insist that one is more okay than the other. and i want everyone working a full-time job to be paid a living wage regardless of what that job is. what do you think "flourishing" means?
my live debate with zulu (plus notes) can be found at the end of this video.
I disagree with the arguments made but +rep for being willing to debate Zulu on this!
Hi there, thanks for the response. Would you be down to have a debate on this topic?
Course you're a debate bro. Can't wait for the ai generated arguments 💀
i’m not good at doing things live if that’s what you’re suggesting, but you’re welcome to refute anything i’ve said here in the comments
@@blearoyd I think it would be far more productive to have a discussion about it; the youtube comments do not provide enough space.
@@LiquidZulu this is true but i don’t see it being very worthwhile.
a lot of your channel revolves around debate so i’d essentially just be giving you content, right?
@@blearoyd You can get content out of it as well, there is no reason that it can't be mutually-beneficial. After all, you have already made some content based on my video (in addition to other videos on the AI topic), why not more?
Starting from nothing and learning to make something that at least you are proud of is a grind that a lot of people miss the value in. So many people seem to think that a talent is a gift, its just energy! If you're interested in something you'll learn about it intentionally or not, when you make the choice this is something I do you slowly get better. Developing an eye is a skill for sure, but I see great value in starting from nothing and struggling to gain a firm understanding of the subject, you will understand it deeper and be able to gain more from your chosen skills!
I disagree with you but this video was very rational and well made. The only thing I would say is saying that Zulu doesn't care about the disabled is unfair
@@Kalakakku_ i did get emotional during that section because i didn’t like the assumptions being made about people like Paul Alexander. but simply using AI for ideation isn’t something i’m against, just exploitation through for-profit models.
in any case, i don’t think either of us can speak for the entirety of the disabled community just because we both know disabled people
It's a good thing there's people willing to put together well researched, insightful, in-depth rebuttals to AI art like this because I still refuse to go deeper than asking "Show me an AI generated project that doesn't require comparison to an existing IP (like Star Wars, shonen anime, etc) to be explained and features a human women over the age of 30 that doesn't look like Elsa from Frozen" Cause goddamn it really seems like 90% AI art is "Cyberpunk Disney girl pouts at a rainstrom"
You should do a debate with him, that would be interesting to watch
Sometimes being made aware of a double standard will force you to choose something and you can reach a higher value more "full self" state! The more you understand your values, the more you, you are!
Hey there! I'm an artist, but I also read a lot of philosophy and economics, and I have actually worked in a trade (electrical). I'm also a friend of Zulu(in fact, some of my art is featured in his video), so that's how I was introduced here. I actually quite like your channel, I always respect people who do art analysis and tutorials. I actively look out for good tutorials to learn from and improve my process. Your channel is very approachable, and I have friends who want to get into art that I am likely to direct your way.
On the topic of this video, I think I could clarify certain things that may have been confusing because they are grounded in the philosophical perspective Zulu applies, which is heterodox to ordinary assumptions. I hope my comment is helpful and enspiriting, rather than burdensome - I suspect from the description "I never want to hear another pro-ai argument again." that you find this quite tiresome. But I think I could do something helpful to you by providing context for some of the statements made by Zulu and others in response to this video. I was going to go through and respond to particular timestamps, but I felt like my responses came off adversarial, rather than contextual, so I will instead try to make general statements:
One thing that you may have realized following your debate with Zulu is that he is arguing that morality and law are objective, rather than subjective or positive. What he means by this is that there are universally correct claims about how humans should act, and how conflicts over scarce means should be resolved. This is the way Zulu is extremely critical of the status quo - intellectual property is not "law" because it is actually a violation of natural rights. In the video, you explicitly state the claim that morality is subjective, which I suspect reveals deeper philosophical differences between you and Zulu than your opinion on AI art and governance.
On the notion of a double standard between AI being easy to use and being difficult to use, and the topic of opportunity cost, I think this misunderstands the point. Like any technological advancement, the process becomes easier in certain aspects, but unaffected in other aspects. My good tools made working as an electrician easier, but it did not trivialize the vocation. It made a specific part of the process more rapid, and as such contributed to the overall efficiency. Similarly, generative AI tools make parts of the process easier, but they do not trivialize the vocation. For the same reason the gradient tool in CSP does not trivialize the profession, or even digital art programs themselves. They make parts of the process easier, more accessible. When it comes to opportunity cost, it is not that it will make everything possible to everyone, but that it is a gradual improvement. Opportunity costs obviously cannot be reduced to zero, because we are beings with finite time in a world of scarce means. But the development of tools and capital is precisely how I am not condemned to the grueling labours of my ancestors, who lived as serfs or slaves.
Another thing I think Zulu is sensitive to that you aren't is the notion of "regulation" being a form of aggression, rather than a societal agreement or negotiation of some sort. State rules and regulations are not passed by unanimous consent, and they apply to people regardless of whether they consent to them. As such, the state will necessarily enforce these regulations on people, with the ultimate threat of violence. This came up during the debate, and I feel like it was a major point of disconnection, and may continue to be. I think it takes a horrifying shock to realize that "regulations" are not just a benign way of making people comply with some standard, but actually entail eventual threats of ultimate violence. People *are* thrown in prison and even killed for "violating regulations", it is not fantastical, it is commonplace.
Overall, I'm happy to see the resentment over this whole debate becoming less powerful, and that people can have reasonable conversations about it. Although I do feel like it's still upsetting that people try to "mind read" each other and claim people are being "entitled" or "unempathetic", because I think those complaints are belittling and insulting, from both sides.
@@SuperBoyboys hi, thanks for the interest in my channel. i recently uploaded my version of the debate which i highly recommend watching as it addresses some of your points and clarifies some of mine that i don’t feel were worded well enough during the live call
@@blearoyd Thanks for the response! I'll take a look, and I might elaborate further. My intent with my comment isn't necessarily to make a point, but to contextualize some of the statements that get made. It might be better for me to focus on the economics side of that discussion, since that's something I've read quite a lot on. Maybe I'll make that comment on your version of the debate VOD.
But I feel like I'm detecting that you find this whole discussion to be rather vexing, rather than stimulating. So I'll ask if you'd prefer not to hear more about it, since I don't want to write something dense and didactic if it would only cause you grief.
@ you’re free to respond to my debate video, i just can’t guarantee i’ll get around to replying in full
Lots of comments, long vid! but wanna say you have a good rap up! Good head on ya kid
Just right off the bat, I can tell you make the fallacy of equivocating law with morality when you clearly subscribe to the legal positivist view of law. That is, you aren't making a concrete moral argument other than "if it's legal it's good, if it's good it's legal" etc.
You also repeatedly make a labour theory of value fallacy. Just because you worked hard that does not entitle you to the wealth and property of others, just because you are the first to discover something that does not give you an inherent right to restrict others from taking advantage of that discovery.
i've gotten the comment of "morality and legality are separate" a few times now so i have to ask:
if someone verbally harasses someone else to the point of su*c*de (and there's evidence of this: texts, email, etc) who's responsible for that death, the harasser or the person who took their own life?
@@blearoyd You're missing the point here. The doctrine of legal positivism is the view that law is spoken ("posited") into existence and, as such, the law is whatever is proclaimed by whoever "created" the law, i.e. completely subjective and arbitrary. This view is opposite to that of natural law theory, the view that law is derived from ethical principles or other observations on human nature or the agency of moral beings. In that sense, law is not "created", but discovered through enquiry. There are more than one natural law theories though, the best known ones being the Thomist, Lockean, and Rothbardian theories of natural law.
I'm not saying that law and ethics are separate to each other, my view is that law and ethics ought to be in alignment, and law that is not ethical is not law, properly speaking. In that sense, while I can make a claim to the effect of "it is illegal, therefore it's wrong", YOU cannot. What I am saying, however, is that since your view on law is positivist, then any attempt made by you to argue that something is wrong because it is illegal is not a proper ethical or moral claim, instead you should structure your argument around the ethical/moral PRINCIPLE that you think that law is derived from, otherwise any claims you make about the "goodness" or "badness" of something being illegal is invalid.
And how is the chain of causality between communication and s---ide determined? If I called you a poopy butthead right now, and you decided to do **that** tomorrow, am I then liable for your demise?
@@connoisseurofcookies2047 as i express near the start of my video, the law is not static and is ever-changing. everything should be questioned. and as i said during the live call with zulu, i'm open to the idea of a copyright-free world, even though i'd have concerns.
i still believe Fair Use to be a reasonable model to follow when attempting to profit off someone else's work in some form.
i don't like exploitation whether it's towards artists, scientists or mathematicians.
(and there's different degrees of harassment just as there's different degrees of murder)
Could I set up a debate between you and zulu on ai art?
are you normally the one setting them up for his channel?
@blearoyd no, I just know Zulu. He is interested in talking to you about this. You interested?
@@lights473 i can't agree outright because i have several questions as to how this all works. you can tell him to expect an email from me within the next day or so
@@blearoyd Do you have his email? Alternatively if you have discord, you can add him there, it's the same name, liquidzulu
@@blearoydDo you have his email? Alternatively he's also on discord with the same name
The part about him claiming AI's learn the same humans do is kind of insane tbh. An AI has no rational soul. It can not find the universal in the particular. At least this is how I see it
The human intellect is geared torwards the aquisition of knowledge and learning language. AIs need a gazillion instances of something to be capable of emulating what a human can do after seeing 2-3 instances of that something.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF exactly. you can point to a dog and tell a toddler that's what a dog looks like and they'll understand with just a few more examples. sure, there may be a margin of error: they may think a cat is also a dog until you point out that dogs have longer snouts but they'll understand the distinction with very little guidance
Have you seen some of the auto answer ai's that are at the top of every search engine have just use reddit joke answers xD
“Kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. -Alan Watts
Figured I'd delete my other comment, way too long. Apologies on a needless essay.
I suppose I'd have a few things worth saying. First, you seem to slightly misunderstand his point on scarcity. It's not that you can't steal something infinitely reproducible, as a stick is practically that yet can be stolen, but that a copy of something isn't stealing it, as both parties have what they own, no one is deprived when a copy is made.
When it comes to AI artists lacking empathy, are you sure that's actually the case? One could say it lacks empathy to enforce copyright, as punishing someone for selling what they own, like an image of Spider-Man, is immoral. It seems like your own psychological projection, and emotional thinking clouding your judgement, because your emotions are better than AI user emotions, because your emotions say so.
Your dismissal of Disney threatening legal action against a daycare center seems to be devoid of empathy, Universal Studios and Hanna-Barbera Productions stepping up doesn't change what Disney did. See how this goes both ways?
Do you actually think LiquidZulu doesn't care about disabled people? I didn't expect you to be a mind reader. And for you to expect, perhaps even demand, disabled people make art the hard way once again seems devoid of empathy.
Your conclusion also seems to be psychological projection. And when it comes to human flourishing, perhaps not the best example, but do you think refugees being given jobs increases human flourishing? If yes, you gave an example earlier in the video where companies hired refugees and immigrants to do data labeling.
i'll just agree it's not "theft". don't really care about that part.
i also agree that this goes both ways. meaning if you're not willing to admit that platforms avoiding having to license out material by continually sneaking things into their TOS is morally wrong then i get to say that Disney and Nintendo are allowed to enforce their own IPs however they want.
the disabled argument is, at best, a stalemate. while i can't argue that there aren't disabled people who find generative ai very useful there are also *plenty* of disabled people who end up in creative careers *because* they can't work a manual labour job or a regular 9-5 and who share all the same concerns about ai that the rest of the art community does.
no, i don't consider refugees having to choose between a $2/hr wage/ poor work conditions and starvation when the companies employing them have the means to provide more to be "flourishing"
@@blearoyd Understandable.
When did I not admit anything? I think legally they do get to enforce what they please, the point itself is morality which is in contention with legality here. There was also another example I'm surprised wasn't brought up where Disney prevented a father from having Spider-Man on his son's gravestone in 2019. Is this moral to you?
Understandable.
I wouldn't be aware of $2 per hour wages, but I'll believe it on the spot. Although it's still their choice, and I'm surprised you'd consider poor working conditions to not be an improvement compared to starving to death. I suppose we have a different idea on human flourishing.
@@itsyaboidaniel2919 i agree that example is amoral and that Disney lawyers are stupid for not understanding how PR works.
just as it's amoral for online platforms to exploit the labour of its users for profit.
again, both ways.
i'm quoting $2/hr from Jimmy McGee's vid which i clipped for my video, so you can take a look at his references if you want.
your willingness to defend comically massive wealth disparity tells me that yes, our definitions do differ.
@@blearoyd Amoral? As in morality doesn't apply? Or did you mean immoral?
I would also make a distinction with your example. Copyright is used in action against someone else. Exploiting benefits of labor already provided for free is not an action against someone. One is aggression, one is maximizing benefit in a selfish manner.
I wouldn't say I defended anything, only that not starving to death is an improvement over starving to death, and thus an improvement on flourishing, not to be confused with an outright good life, simply getting from 1/10 to 2/10. I can easily agree they should be paid more, I think they should be. Though if there's something more specific you'd want or expect, I think you might as well make it clear.
@@itsyaboidaniel2919 yes, typo. i meant immoral.
and if we're going to get pedantic then i could say that ai models using artist's brand names in datasets (while not compensating them in any way) leading to users undercutting said artists by mass-producing images for cheap is financially harmful.
Disney not permitting spider man on a gravestone is morally wrong but not financially harmful.
not that any of this should matter because i'm saying both things are bad and you still want to insist that one is more okay than the other.
and i want everyone working a full-time job to be paid a living wage regardless of what that job is. what do you think "flourishing" means?