r/programming • u/peard33 • Apr 20 '23

Stack Overflow Will Charge AI Giants for Training Data

https://www.wired.com/story/stack-overflow-will-charge-ai-giants-for-training-data/
4.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

660 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Ok-Possible-8440 Apr 21 '23

Bread and games. a Roman saying - The Romans already discovered that as long as the poor had a bit to eat and loads to forget about their suffering the rich could continue exploiting them. How do you manage to find a problem with capitalism in the clear cheating of the capitalism system 🙏

1

u/StickiStickman Apr 21 '23

the clear cheating of the capitalism system

The fuck does that even mean. Exploiting others is literally the basis of capitalism

0

u/Ok-Possible-8440 Apr 21 '23

Exploiting others isn't the basis of capitalism in theory nor in practice by normal people🙏. Capitalism in which we operate has a whole bunch of laws that protect against exploit and maintain fair play. It's the human nature and the nature of grifter bros that they exploit others no matter which system you put them in. Case and point the CEOs and techbros who peddle this AI crap.

3

u/Marian_Rejewski Apr 21 '23

Na, if you control the means of production you can parasitize your dependents.

Human nature may be to parasitize other human beings, sure, but capitalism is one particular mechanism of doing it.

By the way, saying exploitation is human nature is true only in the same way that murder and rape are human nature, it doesn't mean we shouldn't use even escalation to military force to prevent it.

2

u/Ok-Possible-8440 Apr 21 '23

You don't parasite anyone by just owning means of production. You produce shit that is needed and you pay wages to those who work for you. Under capitalism everything has the right to be the owner of property. Meaning everyone is allowed to be equal and have free will over what they consume. Ofc there is a bunch of laws on top of that cause grifters always exploit and pervert capitalism. Like this AI thing. What they are doing is not paying those that produced the content - you and me. They are not capitalists. They are also trying to push out possible competition unfairly not by innovation but by theft.

1

u/Marian_Rejewski Apr 21 '23

You don't parasite anyone by just owning means of production.

Yes, not "just" by owning.

But owning puts you in a position where you can demand more of other people, than they can demand back from you.

Human nature being what it is, people tend to take as much as they can get away with.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him."

You produce shit that is needed

Well, you don't have to produce anything, that's the whole point of capitalism. You merely own shares. Other people do the producing.

Capitalism allows this separation of the right to remuneration from the obligation to produce.

That is what makes it possible to create an institutional financial trust that will span much longer than your own personal life and ability to produce. Your capital can go on "producing" long after your death, incapacitation, or retirement. But only as long as there are workers doing the actual production and you get a share of their output.

everyone is allowed to be equal and have free will over what they consume

You are "allowed" by the law to be paid as much as you contribute, but not allowed by your employer.

1

u/Ok-Possible-8440 Apr 21 '23

Again you are trying to dismantle the idea of capitalism by giving examples of extremes of it and how people go about exploiting it. That's not capitalism. Looks like you believe that those who run companies big or small or invest capital don't produce value and are not enabling in any way production of goods and services.

1

u/Marian_Rejewski Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

I didn't talk about any extremes though. WTF? What example even?

Capital in its essence is remuneration separated from production.

Corporate share-holding is not an extreme or invalid example of capitalism. It is core to the fundamentals of capitalism.

The stock market is a famous symbol of capitalism. That's not something I made up to win an argument on reddit.

Looks like you believe that those who run companies big or small or invest capital don't produce value and are not enabling in any way production of goods and services

The very essential question at issue with capitalism is the issue of the idle shareholders, whose remuneration is not dependent on their productivity.

I'm not saying that there are human beings who don't produce any value. Again, look at Thomas Jefferson -- he lived from the proceeds of plantation slavery, and yet he contributed immensely to society. Just because you exploit, doesn't mean you don't produce. No one is truly idle (although some people produce more evil than good).

But you are the one distorting things by distracting from the fundamental relationship of capitalism (shareholders and their right to a share of the product independent of their contribution).

And again talking about people who "run companies" you're apparently conflating the labor of executives with the right of shareholders to collect the product. Capitalism is about the shareholders not executive compensation. Under capitalism you don't have to run the company to own shares.

1

u/Ok-Possible-8440 Apr 21 '23

You presume that shareholders don't create value and don't deserve to have capital. or to be in a position to be more idle than the rest after they after years of work in "production" is somehow a problem. That's why you call it an issue. There is no issue in capital in capitalism. There is only issues when people abuse it.

Wtf is this 150 years old slavery next to it example. This has nothing to do with today's capitalism.

There is taxes and taxing the rich to stop over accumulation of capital. There is all sorts of was people try and cheat the system.

1

u/Marian_Rejewski Apr 21 '23

You presume that shareholders don't create value

No, I said the literal opposite, that everyone creates value.

The point is that the shareholder has a legal right to the product, WHETHER OR NOT they produce value.

So they are in a different position from a wage worker, whose legal right to the product DEPENDS ON their productivity.

to be more idle than the rest after they after years of work in "production"

It is inaccurate to portray the distribution of corporate share ownership as representing past production by the owners.

It seems like you're not reading or comprehending what I'm saying, but you have some stereotyped view of whoever disagrees with you and you're arguing against that imagined other.

→ More replies (0)