By demanding the copyright our bosses love, we’re seeking the right to be angry about AI, even as the AI companies and our bosses cut deals to train chatbots with our work, which they will use to attack our livelihoods.
Out of curiosity, what else has worked (in the court system) to even remotely challenge AI companies?
The closest example to that given in the blog post is the writer’s guild strike:
If we’re workers, then we derive our power from labor rights. The Writers Guild – the only creative workers in world history to have comprehensively beaten AI in their workplace – won their AI fight with a strike:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/
The Hollywood guilds are able to pursue a limited form of “sectoral bargaining” (where all the workers in a field bargain with all its bosses) called “multi-employer bargaining.” Bosses hate sectoral bargaining, and in 1947 they got it banned outright through the Taft-Hartley Act.
In general it makes the argument that it would make much more sense for people to be fighting for labor and privacy rights related to AI instead of IP rights which will ultimately fail to prevent it from harming their livelihoods.
Pandora’s box has been opened. Build what you want but you better license it AGPL 3.0 or you’re part of the problem.
you better license it AGPL 3.0 or you’re part of the problem.
They ignore copyright. License it however you want, but they’ll still train off your content.
That is known.
To me, it doesn’t defeat the purpose of the license which, for me, is to empower people to build irrevocable, anti-enshittification tools for humanity.
I mean, the solution is simple: Don’t use IP!
No Internet Protocol -> No Internet -> No slop
IP can’t save itself from AI
