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.
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.
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.
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.
As mentioned before, water fluoridation is uncommon in other developed countries.
Shouldn't there be tooth decay problems there, too?
A public health policy should meet the highest standards of evidence such as a systematic review.
Systematic review does show toothpaste fluoridated at sufficient concentrations sufficeswhen administered.
Are people not brushing teeth enough, and wouldn't that be a bigger issue for tooth decay?
Is the fluoride in their toothpaste too low?
A systematic review could reconcile the tooth decay observed in those cohort studies with that of the rest of the developed world lacking fluoridated water (whether they need it there or why they don't).
That would support a public policy.
Recent studies suggest that water fluoridation, particularly in industrialized countries, may be unnecessary because topical fluorides (such as in toothpaste) are widely used and cavity rates have become low.[3]
For this reason, some scientists consider fluoridation to be unethical due to the lack of informed consent.[12]
It ain't only corporations, it's casual, intuitive, everyday speakers—the community that owns the language—arriving there naturally from the regular meaning of individual words:
They see a work that appears to be created by some form of intelligence/creativity.
No natural intelligence created it.
Hence, a work of artificial intelligence.
See?
Not that hard.
No need to be difficult about it.
Nitpicking a casual speaker over it is bound to earn you well-deserved disdain.
After a while, thus achieving another mild infuriation. 💯