This basically means some people are now owned by corporations or at least everything they do is owned by them.

Sam Altman approves this message.

Hundred percent he got a script from a lobbyist to create this sound bite.

AI isn't your pal, it is not the cure for isolation under capitalism. It is also not free to run unless you are the product.

Frankly this take that AI will lead to a communist revolution if people embrace the technology reads more like Vulgar Marxism. You're not seizing the means of production by being a consumer of a technology. And training a communist aligned LLM is a dubious value proposition.

"I am hosting a pirate bay instance AI" foolproof.

Thank you!

More like national socialist

I'm down for a Butlerian Jihad.

Copyright means a legal protection showing you own your own works: words written, audio recorded, and artwork created.

With exceptions for nonprofit and parody, others cannot use your work to do businesss with without your written permission.

Poor people apparently don't get that.

So Pro Piracy argument ... So no more patents or copyrights

Funny that when it was about protecting profits copyright was such a cornerstone principle but when it's about protecting profits it can also be set aside.

I argue, that power is important, regardless of your intentions. If humans want a better world, people need the means to create and uphold it - be it factories, farms, knowledge, communication, guns, AI, or government. I am not arguing for the communism in your head.

Too many associate "means of production" with communism, when it is the fact that power is fundamental to society.

The point is that being a consumer of AI is not seizing the means of production. If you're not spending millions of dollars training and operating the AI to actually own it, the power you have is on lease and the terms can change at anytime without regard to your needs or wishes.

Looks like it's Sam Altman's turn to ram his hand up there to make the puppet talk now. That is word for word what that tech douche nozzle says.

This is definitely what that is, but I take it this also means he's saying pirating is ok for people and not just tech corporations. Safe to assume? Bc otherwise it just seems like more entitled rich fucks making the rules for everyone else that they can ignore

I'll setup a JellAIfin server immediately. It's just the regular Jellyfin code, but I am compiling my own version - it has "AI" added as a comment to every line of code before I compiled.

There was an episode of behind the bastards I was listening to a while back where they mentioned some dude who was using an AI tool to scrape the internet to steal other people's art, so people started doing something that prevented him from optimally stealing their art.

I can't remember what exactly, but the guy started whining that whatever people were doing was "illegal" bc it was damaging his tool he was using to steal other people's shit for his own profit. Like somebody telling you that it's illegal to prevent them from efficiently stealing your property bc it interferes with their livelihood. How dare you!

Anyway, that's the kind of vibes I get from this.

How am I supposed to train my neural network (my own brain) to be a filmmaker if I have to pay for each piece of media I train on (watch)?

Sam Altman defending the ban on Republican state AI regulations in 2025:

Altman, during the hearing, said that Texas had been “unbelievable” in incentivizing major AI projects. “I think that would be a good thing for other states to study,” Altman said. He predicted that the Abilene site would be the “largest AI training facility in the world.” But Altman also later cautioned against a patchwork regulatory framework for AI.

“It is very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulations,” said Altman. “One federal framework that is light touch, that we can understand, and it lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for, seems important and fine.”

Aww, would it make it "difficult" for you to create your technocratic dystopia?

Trump's former CTO and current Science Advisor Michael Kratsios about why we don't need regulations on facial recognition tech in 2019:

“A patchwork of regulation of technology is not beneficial for the country. We want to avoid that. Facial recognition has important roles—for example, finding lost or displaced children. There are use cases, but they need to be underpinned by values.”

Not beneficial for the country or the corporations? Always thinking about the children first, even back then. Please tell me more about how we're just too dumb to understand how all of this is for our own good.

"you cant POSSIBLY expect us, to respect HUMAN RIGHTS if we want progress? i mean the survival of the human species (me and my friends) relies on cheap and free labour and the starvation, death, and exploitation of the masses. if we want to SURVIVE as a species (me and my friends) WE GOTTA EXPLOIT THE PEOPLE"

I and others can run AI on our own consumer hardware, and assorted independent groups have been working on customizing AI. The Swiss, China, and other nations are also implementing open-source models. Given time, the AI space would be like that of the computer: the cost and limitations would shrink greatly, while performance improves.