Comment by OtherShrezzing
Comment by OtherShrezzing 17 hours ago
I think the argument is less about piracy and more that the model(s output) is a derivative work of Harry Potter, and the rights holder should be paid accordingly when it’s reproduced.
Comment by OtherShrezzing 17 hours ago
I think the argument is less about piracy and more that the model(s output) is a derivative work of Harry Potter, and the rights holder should be paid accordingly when it’s reproduced.
Capitalism is allergic to second-order cybernetics.
First-order systems drive outcomes. "Did it make money?" "Did it increase engagement?" "Did it scale?" These are tight, local feedback loops. They work because they close quickly and map directly to incentives. But they also hide a deeper danger: they optimize without questioning what optimization does to the world that contains it.
Second-order cybernetics reason about systems. It doesn’t ask, "Did I succeed?" It asks, "What does it mean to define success this way?" "Is the goal worthy?"
That’s where capital breaks.
Capitalism is not simply incapable of reflection. In fact, it's structured to ignore it. It has no native interest in what emerges from its aggregated behaviors unless those emergent properties threaten the throughput of capital itself. It isn't designed to ask, "What kind of society results from a thousand locally rational decisions?" It asks, "Is this change going to make more or less money?"
It's like driving by watching only the fuel gauge. Not speed, not trajectory, or whether the destination is the right one. Just how efficiently you’re burning gas. The system is blind to everything but its goal. What looks like success in the short term can be, and often is, a long-term act of self-destruction.
Take copyright. Every individual rule, term length, exclusivity, royalty, can be justified. Each sounds fair on its own. But collectively, they produce extreme wealth concentration, barriers to creative participation, and a cultural hellscape. Not because anyone intended that, but because the emergent structure rewards enclosure over openness, hoarding over sharing, monopoly over multiplicity.
That’s not a bug. That's what systems do when you optimize only at the first-order level. And because capital evaluates systems solely by their extractive capacity, it treats this emergent behavior not as misalignment but as a feature. It canonizes the consequences.
A second-order system would account for the result by asking, "Is this the kind of world we want to live in?" It would recognize that wealth generated without regard to distribution warps everything it touches: art, technology, ecology, and relationships.
Capitalism, as it currently exists, is not wise. It does not grow in understanding. It does not self-correct toward justice. It self-replicates. Cleverly, efficiently, with brutal resilience. It's emergently misaligned and no one is powerful enough to stop it.
I don't like many things about this post, its a bit snobbish and uses esoteric language in order to sound more intricate than it really is.
>Capitalism is not simply incapable of reflection. In fact, it's structured to ignore it. It has no native interest in what emerges from its aggregated behaviors unless those emergent properties threaten the throughput of capital itself. It isn't designed to ask, "What kind of society results from a thousand locally rational decisions?" It asks, "Is this change going to make more or less money?"
Capitalism and free market has lot of useful and emergent properties that occur not at the first order but second order.
> In the case of the global economic system, under capitalism, growth, accumulation and innovation can be considered emergent processes where not only does technological processes sustain growth, but growth becomes the source of further innovations in a recursive, self-expanding spiral. In this sense, the exponential trend of the growth curve reveals the presence of a long-term positive feedback among growth, accumulation, and innovation; and the emergence of new structures and institutions connected to the multi-scale process of growth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
In fact free market is an extremely good example of emergence or second order systems where each individual works selfishly but produces a second order effect of driving growth for everyone - something that is definitely preferable.
Appreciate the engagement. But your reply mostly recenters a pro-capitalist narrative by redefining the products of "emergence" as inherently good. My argument isn't about stacking pros and cons and calculating the combined sum. It’s about a structural blind spot: capitalism systematically collapses higher-order questions about what kind of world were building into first-order value propositions like "growth," "utility," and "innovation."
That's the core problem. Capitalism resists second-order critique from within because it translates every possible value: justice, meaning, even critique itself, into terms it can price or optimize. Your response is a perfect example: you defend capitalism by listing its outputs, but that;s another first-order move. If you were engaging at the second-order level, you'd interrogate not what the system produces, but what it refuses to ask, and who gets to decide. That silence is precisely my point.
> "emergence" as inherently good
I did not claim it as inherently good, only that it is preferable.
> capitalism systematically collapses higher-order questions about what kind of world were building into first-order value propositions like "growth," "utility," and "innovation."
There is nothing about capitalism that ignores second or third order effects of its policies. Let me make it clear what kind of capitalist system we have in place - private ownership and free market regulated by a government that works for and is elected by the people. In this system the free market works but only till it progresses certain things the people voted for like standard of living, freedom etc. If free market does instead has unintended consequences we have levers to guide it where we want like taxes and subsidies.
> Capitalism resists second-order critique from within because it translates every possible value: justice, meaning, even critique itself, into terms it can price or optimize
I think I see were you are getting at but I have to be honest - I think it is coming from a naive place (I'm open to be proven incorrect).
Imagine you had the power and the responsibility to shape lives by enacting policy decisions. You are presented with a fairly complex problem where you have a large number of people, each one with their own lives and interests and you have to guide them into doing something preferable. No matter where you come from, left or right in the political axis, you will end up using quantitative methods. I imagine your problem is with such optimisation. If so, what is your exact critique here? How would you rather handle such a situation? How would you manage a system of so many people and without quantitative method? Religion?
> If you were engaging at the second-order level, you'd interrogate not what the system produces, but what it refuses to ask, and who gets to decide. That silence is precisely my point.
Ok please elaborate (only if you have engaged with my question above).
Copyright doesn't "produce a cultural hellscape." That's just nonsense. Capitalism does because it has editorial control over narratives and their marketing and distribution.
Those are completely different phenomena. Removing copyright will not suddenly open the floodgates of creativity because anyone can already create anything.
But - and this is the key point - most work is me-too derivative anyway. See for example the flood of magic school novels which were clearly loosely derivative of Harry Potter.
Same with me-too novels in romantasy. Dystopian fiction. Graphic novels. Painted art. Music.
It's all hugely derivative, with most people making work that is clearly and directly derivative of other work.
Copyright doesn't stop this, because as a minimum requirement for creative work, it forces it to be different enough.
You can't directly copy Harry Potter, but if you create your own magic school story with some similar-ish but different-enough characters and add dragons or something you're fine.
In fact under capitalism it is much harder to sell original work than to sell derivative work. Capitalism enforces exactly this kind of me-too creative staleness, because different-enough work based on an original success is less of a risk than completely original work.
Copyright is - ironically - one of the few positive factors that makes originality worthwhile. You still have to take the risk, but if the risk succeeds it provides some rewards and protections against direct literal plagiarism and copying that wouldn't exist without it.
Everything is derivative. This boundary you are defending between originality and slop is extremely subjective at best. What harm is slop anyway? If originality is so objectively valuable, then why should its value be systemically enforced?
At the intersection of capitalism and copyright, I see a serious problem. Collaboration is encapsulated by competition. Because simple derivative work is illegal, all collaboration must be done in teams. Copyright defines every work of art as an island, whose value is not the art itself, but the moat that surrounds it. It should be no surprise that giant anticompetitive corporations reflect this structure. The core value of copyright is not creativity: it's rent-seeking.
Without copyright, we could collaborate freely. Our work would not be required to compete at all! Instead of victory over others' work, our goal could be success!
and as a consequence the fight of AI vs copyright is one of two capitalists fighting each other. it's not about liberating copyright but about shuffling profits around. regardless of who wins that fight society loses.
it conjures up pictures of two dragons fighting each other instead of attacking us, but make no mistake they are only fighting for the right to attack us. whoever wins is coming for us afterwards
The AI companies want two things:
1. Strong copyright to prevent competition from undercutting their related businesses.
2. Exclusive rights to totally ignore the copyright of everyone that made the content they use to train models.
I personally would much prefer we take the opportunity to abolish copyright entirely: for everyone, not just a handful of corporations. If derivative work is so valuable to our society (I believe it is), then I should be free to derive NVIDIA's GPU drivers without permission.
That may be relevant in the NYT vs OpenAI case, since NYT was supposedly able to reproduce entire articles in ChatGPT. Here Llama is predicting one sentence at a time when fed the previous one, with 50% accuracy, for 42% of the book. That can easily be written off as fair use.
That can easily be written off as fair use.
No, it really couldn't. In fact, it's very persuasive evidence that Llama is straight up violating copyright.
It would be one thing to be able to "predict" a paragraph or two. It's another thing entirely to be able to predict 42% of a book that is several hundred pages long.
Is it Llama violating the "copyright" or is it the researcher pushing it to do so?
If you distribute a zip file of the book, are you violating copyright, or is it the person who unzips it?
It doesn't let you recover the text without knowing it in advance, so no.
You can't in particular iterate it sentence by sentence; you're unlikely to go past sentence 2 this way before it starts giving you back it's own ideas.
The whole thing is a sleigh of hand, basically. There's 42% of the book there, in tiny pieces, which you can only identify if you know what you're looking for. The model itself does not.
But HP is derivative of Tolkien, English/Scottish/Welsh culture, Brothers Grimm and plenty of other sources. Barely any human works are not derivative in some form or fashion.
The argument is meta used the book so the LLM can be considered a derivative work in some sense.
Repeat for every copyrighted work and you end up with publishers reasonably arguing meta would not be able to produce their LLM without copyrighted work, which they did not pay for.
It's an argument for the courts, of course.
Do you personally pay every time you quote copyrighted books or song lyrics?
The main issue on an economical point of view is that copyright is not the framework we need for social justice and everyone florishing by enjoying pre-existing treasures of human heritage and fairly contributing back.
There is no morale and justice ground to leverage on when the system is designed to create wealth bottleneck toward a few recipients.
Harry Potter is a great piece of artistic work, and it's nice that her author could make her way out of a precarious position. But not having anyone in such a situation in the first place would be what a great society should strive to produce.
Rowling already received more than all she needs to thrive I guess. I'm confident that there are plenty of other talented authors out there that will never have such a broad avenue of attention grabbing, which is okay. But that they are stuck in terrible economical situations is not okay.
The copyright loto, or the startup loto are not that much different than the standard loto, they just put so much pression on the player that they get stuck in the narrative that merit for hard efforts is the key component for the gained wealth.