Excellent piece, Johan. Thanks for writing it. The Luddites are a much-misinterpreted movement, having been reduced to simply smashing machines, as opposed to protesting against the transfer of wealth from the many to the few (sound familiar?), and against the reduction of worker protection. They started in Nottingham, where I live. In fact my office is in an early 19th C factory, which made lace, and who knows, may have borne witness to elements of the start the of the movement back in the day!
Great title! Fantastic read - especially the false equivalence analogies of Gutenberg, Henry Ford, Manchester textiles, etc. I liked how you underscored this bait-n-switch tactic of focusing on UBI as the solution instead of upholding private property by endorsing Licensing.
I appreciate the property rights angles and there are some good points here but you've made a few claims that aren't accurate.
1. Gutenberg never raided every monastery - Except they did. The first thing that was printed was the Bible which was handwritten. Once they copied one, they made millions. As far as tithe goes, I'm not sure what this refers to but last I checked, if you wanted a book, no matter how many copies were printed, you had to pay for it. Since then books when from hyper rare and exclusive to the elites to ubiquitous. Further, the handwritten books weren't destroyed except by time.
Ford motor carriages were not manufactured from horse parts - Current AI isn't comsuming and destroying old work. That work remains untouched. I'm not even sure what to make of this since you seem to be equating biological creatures with art so the analogy is just awkward.
John Henry did not pedal the machine he overexerted himself against. - Again... analogy falls flat.
The luddites of Manchester weren’t being shaved for wool. - Artists aren't being shaved for anything anymore than people have always gotten inspiration from artists and built new creations on that. It's ironic that we artists understand inspiration and then throw it out the window in these discussions. I can tell you exactly who inspired my books. I can tell you exactly whose prose I emulated because I like it. This is what AI is doing. It's not stealing and then claiming for it's own. It's mimicry and that's exactly how humans operate.
Early photographers were not labeled painters, and were not given the right to depict any person and any artwork without their permission. - This is nonsensical at first and then patently false in finish. AI isn't claiming to be painters / photographers (at least that I've seen) But yes, Photographers and painters have the right to depict people and artwork without permission. You can certainly paint in the fasion of Picasso but 1. you can't claim it is a Picasso and 2. you can't exactly copy a Picasso. There is nothing that stops you from writing/painting/photographing in the style of someone else. Hell, I could go to the exact same location as Ansel Adams and take as close to the exact same photo as him and that's perfectly legal as long as I don't claim it is his photo.
Silkscreen printers, and later Xerox operators, were not labeled photographers, and were not given the right to mass reproduce the work of photographers. - Again, nonsensical up front. That's not what AI is doing. This one is the only one that concludes with an accurate statement. However, AI isn't mass producing exact xerox copies of artists or writers.
It's these conclusions that highlight the lack of knowlege of how art is created, how technology operates, and worse, creates a strawman that you then debunk.
Because you mention Henry Ford a few times I'd like to highlight a quote of his:
"I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work."
For a psychological adventure into human and AI creativity check out "Can AI be Creative."
Excellent piece, Johan. Thanks for writing it. The Luddites are a much-misinterpreted movement, having been reduced to simply smashing machines, as opposed to protesting against the transfer of wealth from the many to the few (sound familiar?), and against the reduction of worker protection. They started in Nottingham, where I live. In fact my office is in an early 19th C factory, which made lace, and who knows, may have borne witness to elements of the start the of the movement back in the day!
Beware of Sheriff ghosts eh
Great title! Fantastic read - especially the false equivalence analogies of Gutenberg, Henry Ford, Manchester textiles, etc. I liked how you underscored this bait-n-switch tactic of focusing on UBI as the solution instead of upholding private property by endorsing Licensing.
I appreciate the property rights angles and there are some good points here but you've made a few claims that aren't accurate.
1. Gutenberg never raided every monastery - Except they did. The first thing that was printed was the Bible which was handwritten. Once they copied one, they made millions. As far as tithe goes, I'm not sure what this refers to but last I checked, if you wanted a book, no matter how many copies were printed, you had to pay for it. Since then books when from hyper rare and exclusive to the elites to ubiquitous. Further, the handwritten books weren't destroyed except by time.
Ford motor carriages were not manufactured from horse parts - Current AI isn't comsuming and destroying old work. That work remains untouched. I'm not even sure what to make of this since you seem to be equating biological creatures with art so the analogy is just awkward.
John Henry did not pedal the machine he overexerted himself against. - Again... analogy falls flat.
The luddites of Manchester weren’t being shaved for wool. - Artists aren't being shaved for anything anymore than people have always gotten inspiration from artists and built new creations on that. It's ironic that we artists understand inspiration and then throw it out the window in these discussions. I can tell you exactly who inspired my books. I can tell you exactly whose prose I emulated because I like it. This is what AI is doing. It's not stealing and then claiming for it's own. It's mimicry and that's exactly how humans operate.
Early photographers were not labeled painters, and were not given the right to depict any person and any artwork without their permission. - This is nonsensical at first and then patently false in finish. AI isn't claiming to be painters / photographers (at least that I've seen) But yes, Photographers and painters have the right to depict people and artwork without permission. You can certainly paint in the fasion of Picasso but 1. you can't claim it is a Picasso and 2. you can't exactly copy a Picasso. There is nothing that stops you from writing/painting/photographing in the style of someone else. Hell, I could go to the exact same location as Ansel Adams and take as close to the exact same photo as him and that's perfectly legal as long as I don't claim it is his photo.
Silkscreen printers, and later Xerox operators, were not labeled photographers, and were not given the right to mass reproduce the work of photographers. - Again, nonsensical up front. That's not what AI is doing. This one is the only one that concludes with an accurate statement. However, AI isn't mass producing exact xerox copies of artists or writers.
It's these conclusions that highlight the lack of knowlege of how art is created, how technology operates, and worse, creates a strawman that you then debunk.
Because you mention Henry Ford a few times I'd like to highlight a quote of his:
"I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work."
For a psychological adventure into human and AI creativity check out "Can AI be Creative."
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/can-ai-be-creative
For an analysis of Technology, Artists, and how AI works in check out "Artists Vs. AI:"
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/artists-vs-ai