No, I disagree. There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work.
The way societies work is that the members of the society contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with lots of excess production may at times choose to allow creative works to be monetized. Societies without much surplus are extremely unlikely to do so, eg a society with not enough food for everyone to eat in the middle of a famine is extremely unlikely to feed people who only create art; those people will have to contribute in some other way.
I think it is a very modern western idea (less than a century old) that many artists can dedicate themselves solely to producing the art they want to produce. In all other times artists either had day jobs or worked on commission.
That doesn't follow; you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set. What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim?
> you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set
Of course you can. Anyone can say anything.
Is “keeping the list of principles a secret” a principle like the rules of Fight Club? It is not unreasonable to ask for a link or summary of this immutable set of ground truths.
> What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim?
I could not answer this question without being able to double check. The only principle that comes to mind is the principle of ligma
> There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work.
What does that have to do with rivalry? This doesn't dispute the idea that AI is indeed competing with artists. You're just saying artists don't deserve to get paid.
Regardless, some artists will give up but some will simply be more careful with where and how they post their art with tools like these. AI doesn't have a right to the artist's images neither.
I used to identify as a copyright abolitionist (I really love Nina Paley's TED talk, "copyright is brain damage") but the more I look at the history of it I see the compromises of interests, copyright is there so art is not locked up between artists and their patrons.
The tragedy of "your business model is not my problem" as a spreading idea is that while you're right since distribution is where the money is (not creation), intellectual property is de-facto weakened today and IP piracy is widely considered an acceptable thing.
So is sabotaging solutions that would make creative work of the same (or superior) quality more affordable. Your ability to produce expensive illustrations hinders my ability to produce cheap textbooks.
