Your summary (and these other intellectual products) are *also* communication to other people, but without intentionality in creation, they cannot be used for the same purposes. The author/speaker matters for interpretation even if there are no false statements.

When I write a summary, the summary is not the work product. The work product is me having read it and put it into structure and making decisions about what to include at what level. The summary is a signifier of me having done that work.

All these cretins know how to do is project. To them, the idea that one might share a post with their followers and actually have their followers see it without having to resort to nefarious manipulation is utterly unthinkable.

I think they realized their "I'm an AI CEO, and my product is so powerful it's going to take all your jobs and/or kill all life on earth! scary!!!" shtick wasn't cutting it any more.

My theory is that as the "AI" fraud crashes, "AI believers will feel the need to convince others of their, increasingly delusions, beliefs, in order to fortify their own belief, as evidence crashes down around them.

Even now there’s some dipshit ‘cofounder’ in the replies, utterly convinced that superintelligence is coming in 2026 because he somehow doesn’t understand that PhDs exist to produce original research, not to pass dumb benchmark tests.

Very earnest and thoughtful ppl being like “not all AI” is getting to me too tbh, the room is not being read

Thinking of GenAI as pollution is a good lens to look at it. It will forever more destroy the credibility of images, text and video. It’s a stain on the internet, an oil spill that no amount of dawn and toothbrushes will clear. We will live with the consequences for generations.

If you use either technology 'correctly' it's not convenient! But convenience is the entire point!

People rightfully complain about copyright being extended again and again, about everything being remakes and the same five stupid franchises, about perfectly good films being destroyed for tax write-offs. But all of that is thanks to corporate oligopolies, which pervert everything for more money.

And thus, intellectual property rights—so the folks desperate to ape the first successful thing that comes along are forced to put in at least a tiny bit of originality into their efforts. So the folks who do take that risk and are rewarded for it have at least some incentive to take a second risk.

So you'll need investors. Art cannot help but intersect with the economy. But investors want the safest or surest return. And if you have an example of success, they'll just glom onto it and copy it as closely as possible unless they're forced to do otherwise.

If you want any sort of art that is out of the scope of a single person's efforts—a movie, a TV show, a video game, someone will have to put up money so that it can be made. We really don't want that 'someone' to be exclusively rich people and their disgusting tastes, nor exclusively the government.

The future both generative AI folks and anti-copyright absolutists want isn't one where human creativity is unleashed. It's one where humanity, having supposedly finally authored anything that could possibly be of value, contents itself forever with an eternal cycle of consumption and regurgitation.

The cyberlibertarian, though, is the real dangerous one. His insistence that cyberspace remain completely unregulated directly paved the way for the rise of the tech oligopolies, and it is in his spirit that the generative AI companies stole everything they could to train their models.

The pseudoleftist is an deeply unhappy creature; he spends his life feuding with other pseudoleftists on social media and thus has no time to actually consume the sort of art his beliefs on copyright would affect, except perhaps to complain about its moral content like a religious fundamentalist.

But the aforementioned dimwit, often a cyberlibertarian or basement pseudoleftist, rejects this framing altogether. The cyberlibertarian is an useful idiot serving the interests of Big Tech. The basement pseudoleftist just thinks he has an inalienable right to have anything he wants for free.

IP law is indeed broken; like just about everything else it privileges large corporations over small creators. A healthy IP regime would allow small creators to enforce their rights without bankrupting themselves and would make room for fanart and fanfiction while respecting artists' moral rights.