Why even bother with a hate speech policy? Oh, right, money.

The “platinum rule”

1. falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
2. isn’t reciprocal
3. fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.

While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it’s reciprocal.

The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want. One way to treat others is to let them do as they want. People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should. Can we oppose them? People wouldn’t want that, so we shouldn’t.

The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong). To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don’t create unwanted obligations. If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations. Thus, we shouldn’t disagree.

In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust. This platinum looks more like pyrite.

In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art. Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.

Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values. “Respecting wishes” isn’t a democratic value and neither is being a good person. Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values. Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists. That’s why I wrote it doesn’t matter & such arguments are “futile & senseless”.

It’s also why I don’t state my position on it: it’s a red herring that doesn’t defend democratic values, which I’m arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic. Even if I agree with (I could!), it’s beside the point.

I think it’s worth pointing out that respect doesn’t mean fulfilling someone’s wishes or treating them however they want. While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong. Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation. Claiming we should always respect people’s wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong. We can’t satisfy everyone, nor are we here to. This just seems like basic sense.

Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society. Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world “at large”. The alternative would be bleak.

After a while, thus achieving another mild infuriation. 💯

not how colons work

You had me scanning the image (of text without alt text: bad, OP! BAD!) for a : pretty hard until I settled on The New York Times message

Breaking News: Susan[…]

for a while. Had me wondering how else The New York Times is supposed to write that, because it looks correct.

This is why quoting exists.

To answer your question, it’s more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.

When approaching these ethical questions, I think it’s best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me? As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes. Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio’s founder, since it results in no actual harm.

Since morality should be based on universal principles that don’t depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents. Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand? The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it’s fine.

I don’t see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it’s more of a claim right than a wish. In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust. While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it’s out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it. Some wishes don’t need to be fulfilled.

you’re a bad troll

Haters gonna hate.

the entire thread was about AI IP theft

Answered: that part you didn’t read.

It’s funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn’t care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up. Then they suddenly “care”: whatever it takes to take down AI, right? Even if it takes us down with it.

I don’t like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism. The person’s liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.

you threw in a red herring

Your moral hypocrisy? The coherence of your “moral code”?

just to make personal attacks against me

Does it suck to be judged for the actions you’ve demonstrated here?

I’m also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.

when you are challenged you claim abelism

Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out. Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change. Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.

it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself

Does it? Someone here should be ashamed.

If we’re done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.

more images of text alt text that misleads people with accessibility needs

So just to be clear

• false “IP theft” (derivative works in a similar style aren’t theft) that harms no one violates your moral code
• discrimination that objectively disadvantages the disabled is fine to you.

Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged. Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them? Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?

Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.

Well, you’re wrong.

image of text
no alt text
people with accessibility needs can’t read this

And you’re ableist for that. Good job.

When a machine imitates me, I take it as an insult to life itself.

I might be flattered that someone bothered to make a machine do that. Massaging software to do that also takes skill?

When GitHub Copilot lifts my opensource code, I’m not offended. I only cringe a bit when it’s bad code I regret committing.

they needed respect to be creative unfettered

Respectfully, I don’t see what unfettered here is adding. I clarified by editing the earlier comment to request to explain the logic.

How does “respect” “allow” an artist “unfettered creativity”? How exactly is instructing others how to treat/imitate their work & expecting their wishes to be fulfilled promoting “unfettered creativity”? Seems like the opposite. Can you break that down into logic?

Are you suggesting artists are fragile beings whose creativity only exists at the mercy of our “respect” and the slightest disrespect breaks them? That seems rather self-important.

I submit that artists don’t need our respect to be creative: the suggestion is belittling to artists.

The real point is the article fails to argue well.

We’re acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.

So not at all: got it.

you should have the right to say “I don’t want you to imitate my exact style”

You do.

people should respect that

“That’s just like your opinion, man.” meme goes here.

The argument seems to amount to “stop using/imitating my work to express yourself in ways I don’t like”, which is futile & senseless.

It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, either. It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.

If we limited ourselves to doing what we should, then entertainment like Ghibli wouldn’t exist, and you wouldn’t write comments here. There’s no reason you should write comments here, yet you did. Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?

Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing or losing total perspective over. If we pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original. Works build on & reference each other. Techniques get refined. It’s why we have genres. From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.

Oddly enough, Princess Mononoke is inspired by the Cedar Forest guardian Humbaba from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Should we also condemn Ghibli’s “lack of integrity” for their “intellectual property theft” from the ancient Mesopotamians?

If Ghibli were somehow deprived of economic gain & welfare due to others passing off derived work as their own, then you might have a point. However, I doubt when they sincerely want to watch Ghibli, people decide instead to watch LLM generated stills on social media that no one would pay for. They’re no substitute for real, creative output. If anything, the increased exposure stirs interest in the real work of Ghibli. Even the objection is speculation: the article doesn’t state Miyazaki objected, it merely argued he would. So, no, you don’t have a real point here, either.

This is as much “theft” as any other imitative, derivative expression. I’ll take free speech over decrying fake “theft”.

Are we pretending this is new & their opinion matters in some new way it hasn’t before?

There might be an argument to demand licensing royalties on intellectual property. Is that too capitalist? Maybe it’s fine if we work that into the word fascism somehow, wear it out a bit more to hit that sweet spot. Ooh.

Cool, another preachy argument that jumps to irrational conclusions. Because Ghibli?

It is a display of power: You as an artist, an animator, an illustrator, a writer, any creative person are powerless. We will take what we want and do what we want. Because we can.

Uh…we always could & did. Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs. No one owns an art style.

This is the idea of might makes right. The banner that every totalitarian and fascist government rallied under.

That’s the argument? Plagiarism & imitating art styles is fascism? Wow! The rest of the article is worse.

Please make the word fascism more meaningless.

So would magic.

image of text

no alt text

users with accessibility needs can’t read this

what is a link to the source?

🤦

image of text

no alt text

users with accessibility needs can’t read this

Thanks…

They should & they won’t. You know who owns the executive branch & gives absolutely 0 shits, right?