path: root/content-org/articles.org

#+TITLE: Michał Sapka's Emacs Config
#+AUTHOR: Michał Sapka
#+URL: https://michal.sapka.me
#+STARTUP: overview indent logdone

#+HUGO_BASE_DIR: ~/ghq/vcs.sapka.me/michal-sapka-me/
#+HUGO_WEIGHT: auto
#+HUGO_AUTO_SET_LASTMOD: t
#+HUGO_SECTION: articles

* Article                                                           :@article:
** DONE Article Library                                             
CLOSED: [2023-12-20 Wed 22:47]
:PROPERTIES:
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: _index
:END:
Articles are long(-sh) publications that don't fit the blog or any other category. 
** DONE Ownership in the digital age                               :@update:
CLOSED: [2023-12-08 Wed 23:00]
:PROPERTIES:
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: digital-ownership
:EXPORT_HUGO_CUSTOM_FRONT_MATTER: abstract Digital economy has taken over and with this we need to reevaluate what it means to actually own something. In this article I try to present my definition of ownership and what results from it.
:END:
It is often said that you can't own anything unless you have a physical thing in your hand.
So, any digital purchase is not ownership. 
A Blu-ray is.

> ... And in the case of "Oppenheimer", we put a lot of care and attention into the Blu-ray version […] and trying to translate the photography and the sound, putting that into the digital realm with a version you can buy and own at home and put on a shelf so no evil streaming service can come steal it from you. ...  \
> Christopher Nolan

This made me wonder and the longer I thought, the less I could agree.
The simple fact that you own the carrier does not necessary mean that you own the content.

*** 1. What it means to own something?

Here are a few questions I asked myself to get to that conclusion

- *Can you access it?*
This is simple. 
I have paid for it, can I access it assuming all requirements are fulfilled?
If not, this is a scam.
- *Does it require subscription?*
Do I need to pay again to use it? 
Case in point: any SASS. 
You don't own any Netflix content.
- *Can you run it locally?*
I have paid for it. Can I run (play) it on my local machine? 
Or is the provider infrastructure needed?
Example: any cloud software.
You can't run Notion on your machine.
- *Can someone take it from you?*
Can someone block me from accessing it?
Case in point: Amazon removing copy of /1984/ from Kindles[^1984].  
Note, that the situation where law enforcement or judge can take it from you is completely valid.
We have a different relation with governments than with private companies.
- *Are there any locked features?*
Are there features provider can use, but you can not?
You need to /hack/ your android device to gain root privileges.
- *Can you sell it?*
Can I sell my copy?
You can't sell previously bought game on Steam[^steam-acc].
- *Can you back it up*
Can I create a copy in case of breaking the original?
Disks can break and data stored on them can rot.
You can't back up Blu-ray without defeating DRM mechanisms.
This is the first moment I disagree with Nolan.
- *Can you copy it?*
Can you create an identical copy?
It's a digital entity, so identical copy is the easiest out there.
I don't mention selling here, just to create a copy.
Again, Blu-ray with DRM block copying.
- *Can you borrow it?*
Can I borrow it to a friend?
You can borrow a Blu-ray, but not a Kindle book or PSN game.
- *Can you access it on wide range of devices?*
Can I access it on a device fulfilling technical requirements?
I don't expect to run an TRS-80 game on PlayStation 5, but why can't I play my DVD bought in Europe after traveling to North America?
Ergo, any DRM "secured" digital good is not owned.
- *Can you modify it?*
Can you change the home screen layout of iPhone outside what the designers provided?
- *Can you repair it?*
A bit self-explanatory.
Can you repair your MacBook assuming you have the skills required?
What about the Windows copy you use?

[^1984]: [[https://archive.nytimes.com/pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/][Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others]]
[^steam-acc]: I know that people sell entire Steam accounts with games, but this is bypassing the no-sell policy; not a feature.

Nowadays, it's almost impossible to make a transition regarding a digital good which would tick most of those ticks.
Back before everything went digital it would be difficult to find cases which *wouldn't*.
Not all of them, as it would be difficult to copy a refrigerator (but not impossible) but the sentiment remains.
It used to be that owner was able to exercise much broader freedom of usage.

*** 2. Impact of ownership on my perceived value

As I've hopefully explained before, almost all digital goods on the mark don't fall into "possible to own" category.
But if we pay for it, where does it leave us?
I needed a word to define the result of transaction which does not pass ownership.
And there is such word: /rent/.

Renting was always there.
I would rent videotape for a local rental.
I would rent a book from local library.
I would rent a car from car rental company.
None of these were ever considered a /purchase/, because why would we?
I paid for access, but whatever I rented was still owned by the other party.

This is not the exact case as with the primary subject here.
I am lured to believe that I own "my digital purchase" because the timeframe is not defined upfront.
Therefore, I think of a Steam, Amazon, PSN, iTunes "purchase" as indefinite renal.
I may lose access at any moment[^sony], I just don't know when.
It may happen due to multitude of reasons: the company may go bankrupt, the license may expire[^sony], my account may become blocked[^sony2], or the company may pull out and close the service[^google].
[^sony]: [[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/12/playstation-is-erasing-1318-seasons-of-discovery-shows-from-customer-libraries/][PlayStation is erasing 1,318 seasons of Discovery shows from customer libraries]]. Seriously.
[^sony2]: [[https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/several-playstation-users-locked-out-of-their-accounts-get-permanent-suspension-message-from-sony-2472107-2023-12-05][Several PlayStation users locked out of their accounts, get permanent suspension message from Sony]]
[^google]: [[https://www.wired.com/story/google-stadia-shutting-down-phil-harrison/][The End of Google Stadia]]

The wording here is exact: I may /loose access/. Yup, this is what I mean when I think of renting.

There was, however, one huge benefit of renting when compared to buying: the price.
It was always much cheaper to rent a move than buy one.
It made perfect sense.
I was able to watch a rented movie for a few days, and then return it.
The renter would invest in purchase, I would pay a small amount and the world would still do its thing.

In the digital age this gain is no longer valid.
When renting becomes the only option, there is no reason to offer it cheaper than ownership.
And therefore renting of digital goods is expensive.

Too expensive.
If we start to think that the "buy" button actually means "rent", that $60 shiny new game stops making so much sense.

*** 3. Digital scarcity

But since it is commonly understood as "purchase", then companies can try to use our collecting impulses.
And they are strong, just look at any random tech channel.
People want to collect, and to put things in their collections.

Steam library is often a reason to brag about.
I have a thousand games they say!
I played 10, but I have 1000!

And so there are preorders.
Get you digital purchase early, be the first to own it.
Get *rare* add-ons (as if anything digital can be rare).
Pay extra for super-duper version with limited horse armor (nothing stops them from releasing the bonus content later on).

The idea come from olden days, where getting stuff soon may have been the only way to actually get it.
If it's vinyl record they are selling, they indeed may run of it.
If it's download, the only way to stop next person from it is greed.

*** 4. "My" page

A special mention goes to Facebook with their brilliant "My page" marketing.
"Visit our Facebook page" is what I often see and hear.
And yet there nothing "theirs" on that page except of content, to which right were transferred to Meta the moment someone hit "send".
This is (still) free, but using the "My" word is further eroding the meaning of ownership.
Please, don't.

*** 5 The pirate in the room

And now the sad part: the closest way to own digitual stuff  warez[^dmca].
Crackers, in order to bypass the DRM mechanism (now called jail breaking) need to remove limitations enforced on the end user.
You can copy a pirated game, you can borrow it, you can modify it, you can archive it.
It's more /yours/ than the biggest of Steam libraries.

[^dmca]: My views on DMCA are not part of this article. Someday I'll write one and get banned from Google.

*** 6. Conclusion

Where does this leave me?
I can't change anything and the transformation to digital-renting of everything is here to stay.
Everyone wants me to rent to something - be it streaming service, or a car company.

However, when I stopped thinking that I can actually own anything, my perceived value of digital stuff couldn't be lower.
I may drop a few bucks for a digital-download.
But above that?
Hard sell.

Meaning of words change over time, and they always had.
The definition of "ownership" was clear but no longer is.
The word can mean any financial transaction or be nothing more than marketing ploy.
You can have zero ownership (Netflix), a bit of it (PSN), a lot of it (GOG[^gog]).
And this gradation correlates my interest of doing business.
I'll **gladly** pay an author for a DRM-free PDF of their book if I can download it. 
I'll happily buy a DRM-free game from GOG.

But below that level of purchasing? Well, I can either skip it completely or think of other ways of obtaining it.

[^gog]: [GOG 2022 update #2: our commitment to DRM-free gaming](https://www.gog.com/news/bgog_2022_update_2b_our_commitment_to_drmfree_gaming).
** DONE On generative content                                      :@update:
CLOSED: [2023-12-20 Wed 22:47]
:PROPERTIES:
:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: generative-content
:EXPORT_HUGO_CUSTOM_FRONT_MATTER: abstract I don't believe that AI will kill us, but I strongly believe it will lessen us. Here I try to describe that by looking at impact on art, culture, tech, and potential benefits.
:END:
It seems that generative content from "modern" AI models has been with us forever.
In reality this is still a new fad.
The feeling is here because it seems that every few days we hear new product or controversy.

However, I still remember that computers were to be unable to replace humans in /creative/ work.
That the /human/ part is irreplaceable, and machines can only reproduce.
I think it still the case.
But, somehow, artists, techies, and all kinds of other folks all over the world are afraid of loosing their means of living.
Rightfully so.
But why?
*** 1. Mass-art market
When I was younger, I was very into cinematography.
We had so many directors with their voices - Jarmush, Lynch, Smith, Tarantino, Cronenberg, Carpenter, Boyle, Ritchie, Anderson, or Fincher.
And that's just the USA!
They had the voice - even when imitating, the movies were distinctly /theirs/.
They got chances, so we all knew them.
It is no longer the case.
The mid-budget movie is almost non-existent, and that's where the creativity strived.
The popular movies, the ones that make all the money, are indistinguishable copies of each other.
What earns the money is the same, big budget CGI fest without any real meaning or personal touch.

In photography the end product is so removed from the original, that often it is impossible to see similarities.
Everything that is not perfect is corrected and removed.
We don't see people from posters on the street because they don't exist in the same reality we do.
This is what we call /content/, this shapeless blob filling platforms.

The mass-market "art" (and I use the term here very loosely) was removed from the /human/ a long time ago.
Why take chances, when we know what will work?
And if you know what will work, why even bother with humans?
An AI can create the script, and we can reuse that 3d model of Bogart - because why not?
What we see and what we pay for is no longer /human/.
It's more machine than that - endlessly modified to be as close the blob of mass appeal as possible.
Indistinguishable from each other.

And this is where generative algorithms strive.
When we exactly know what we want to produce, where there is a mathematical equation of beauty, we're no longer in *human* creativity.

Since the most popular /content/ is made from the same mold, LLM models can create it as well.
In fact, it can create it better, as those /imperfections/ that a human might have missed, an AI can easily remove.

All the Dall-E pictures are perfect. They are impossibly complex and complying to the popular norms.

They are also boring. 
It's the imperfections that make /art/, well, /Art/.
No human creation is perfect and this why computer generated /content/ can not be called art.
It's too studied, too ideal, too perfect.

But the mass market pulp is what allows /artists/ to live.
This is where they make the money.
This is what pays the bills, what puts the food on the table.
Why pay 50EUR and wait 2 weeks for a Fiver order?
You can get just as good result in 10 minute chat with a bot.

LLMs have reversed humanity.
I fear that we are getting back to the state where /art/ may come only from /suffering/;
where artists live to create that one piece which may immortalize them, but this life is not what modern world promises.
We are to no longer see /hungry/ people in developed countries.
We are to no longer experience /pain/ in pursue of /happiness/.
Why would anyone choose it?

Therefore, I am afraid that this will decrease the number of people who choose creativity as their living hood.
Without them, we will be destined to status-quo of mediocrity
It will be perfect, but it will be soulless.

Just as the mass market is now, just without anyone pushing it forward.
And with us, running the hamster wheel of never ending /content/.
*** 2. Tech market
The other, very popular, use case is code generation.

GitHub Copilot can translate a short query into an evaluable code.
It is sold as a mean to automate the /boring/ and /repetitive/ tasks - creating boilerplate, configurations, loops, or simple algorithms.
But are those really lesser tasks than the big ones?

I've been a professional Software Engineer for 10 years now.
My journey has not been the typical, one where one finishes either IT college, or a boot camp.
I'm self-thought, and I joined It Crowd from other occupation by sheer luck.
The company needed /Ruby/ developer and boom - there I was.
Not the perfect candidate, but I was capable, eager and hungry.

I've made a lot of mistakes, I've wasted a lot of time, I've taken down the production on a few occasions.
All of those could have been avoided if I used a code generation.

But it's impossible of overstate how important those menial tasks were in making me into a real /Software Engineer/.

With every mistake, I learned. 
With every issue, I became swifter to jump into action,
With every boring, repetitive task[^ruby] I gained insights into how stuff works.
[^ruby]: with /Ruby/ and /Ruby on Rails/ there aren't many of those but still, you do the same things from time to time.

But the biggest growth came from the most hated task of all - writing tests.
It is there where I learned how to write a usable contract; it is there where I learned the value of documentation-as-a-code[^cdac]
Would I learn anything from "hey copilot, write tests for this class"?
I doubt.
[^cdac]: very often the best documentation of a contract is the test for it.

This was what every intern/junior would do - the dirty work.
With the dirty work comes the realization that the real world is not perfect, not every code is good and not every developer is good at being a developer.
And with Copilot we are loosing it.

We are losing it two ways: first, juniors will not learn; second junior will not be hired.
We are already seeing that there are much fewer offers for sub-senior positions.
Why would it be different?
A senior aimed with code generation can do the work of many junior and one senior.
It makes /perfect/ economic sense.

But this is also the suicide of the industry.
Without new blood, the tech crowd will shrink.
Companies want infinite growth, and will not stop at anything to accomplish it.
We've seen all the visa scandals, the inclusivity actions, the offshoring[^contr].,
It's clear that all those had only one goal: to increase the pool of /cheaper/ candidates.
The typical programmer is expensive; someone fighting to leave poverty is not.
But now the competition is no longer /someone/ cheaper, but rather something that's never tired, and can create infinite number of creations, but is still /cheaper/ than a human can ever be.
When was the last time you tried to outrun a train?
When was the last time you tried to fight a machine to give your children a better start?
[^contr]: this is not the place where I want to address those subjects, but their existence is important for this article.
*** 3. Maybe I am wrong
But what if I am wrong?
We've seen similar things before.
Ever since the beginning of industrial revolution, more and more industries were mechanized and automated.
The machines needed someone to take care of them, to design them.
And the rest of the populi moved to other areas.

Will it be the same?
Well, how much work does an /algorithm/ need to operate?
We are still in development phase, so we see a lot of people working there.
But when we will reach plateau?
There will be a time when it will be good enough.
A moment when companies will buy it and not expect it to be better.
How many people will be needed then?
What will be left to do?

Will Universal Basic Income be enough?
It assumes infinite growth, and this may be in the hands of very few, gigantic companies.
We already see how big influence Altman and Open AI has.
There will still be rich, the 1%, so money will still be an issue.
Will we simply do yet another October Revolution?
*** 4. Utopia that is false
The best case scenario is that humanity, as a whole, will ascend.
Free from the shackles of menial task, we will all be poets and explorers.

This is what /Star Trek/[^old] is all about - a world where we no longer need to create and work to survive.
In place of that, we are free to pursue adventure, knowledge.
With nothing to gain, why one would need power? 
Money?
We can focus on the humanity as one entity, to make it better.
[^old]: old Trek, at last.

In /Star Trek/ this was not created by removing jobs but by presence of /replicators/ - a device capable of creating virtually anything.
No longer food is scarce, we can simply create it.

Replicators are like LLM, but they create things of intrinsic value.
This is what removed the shakles.
And this is the biggest difference: LLM don't create anything that will actually free us.
It will never make our lives better and freer.
It will make it easier for /few/ on the cost of /many/.
*** 4. Summary

I believe that LLMs will steal of us younger talent, who has yet to make a dent.
They won't have the chance to learn and earn on the basic stuff, so they will not be in position to create the big thing.
The cost of using LLMs is so low (and will only become cheaper), that there will be no place for them.
And I am afraid that the post-LLM market can find worthy place for them.