Sorry I was going to tease you about being mad at the machine but also wanting the machine to love you and wanting to be counterculture but courting the same capitalism everyone does. But that seemed mean.
"And now we’re building AI designed to replace human creativity, while insisting that human creativity has no value worth protecting. OpenAI can swallow every book in print to train GPT-5 and refuse to compensate the authors because the model “transforms” the work. Right. Just like a photocopier “transforms” a document by making it slightly blurrier."
Right after reading your Content discontent, I read an article in IPWatchdog's newsletter about the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism July 16th hearing titled “Too Big to Prosecute?: Examining the AI Industry’s Mass Ingestion of Copyrighted Works for AI Training.” The article reported that Subcommittee Chair Josh Hawley (R-MO) called generative AI companies’ use of copyrighted works to train their chatbots and other large language models (LLMs) “the largest IP theft in American history” and rejected the suggestion from some witnesses that the courts should determine the path forward. Senator Hawley referring to the Meta case said, “If the answer is that the biggest corporation in the world worth trillions of dollars can come take an individual author’s work like Mr. Baldacci, lie about it, hide it, profit off of it, and there’s nothing our law does about that, we need to change the law.” https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/07/20/hawley-says-congress-must-step-in-to-fix-ai-companies-mass-theft-of-copyrighted-works/id=190469/#
This is one policy area where I agree with Senator Hawley. One of the witnesses said the courts should decide these difficult issues of fair use, which means we will have conflicting interpretations of what constitutes fair use, resulting, in my opinion, in a lack of protection for creative artists.
Andrew Berger, a copyright litigator, posted a thoughtful post a week ago on LinkedIn about a recent AI fair use decision, 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘻 v. Anthropic. Here is an excerpt:
"On summary judgment 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘻 held Anthropic’s use of the legally acquired & pirated books for [AI] training was fbar
Judge Alsup found the training even with the pirated books to be “quintessentially transformative” because it was for a new purpose: to generate new responses to prompts.
The court also found no market harm because the models didn’t output “any exact copies” or “infringing knockoffs.”
Instead, the models generate an “explosion” of competing works the court welcomed because they furthered the purpose of copyright: to increase original output, not protect its creators.
But how will that purpose be furtbhered if the creators are not protected?"
This court's reasoning is an example of why I agree with Senator Hawley that legislation is needed to change the law to stop the theft of our creative artists works by companies that should be paying for the rights to use them to train their large language models.
First, integration. As you pointed out, we are rushed from one thing to the next without the opportunity to take what we’ve just watched/read/listen to and integrate it. We don’t sit with it, roll it around our grey matter, and ponder. We don’t break it down into a more basic form and try to see how the underlying message or principles can apply to our own lives. And it’s not just with art or content. Everyone wants the Cliff Notes version of how to get X in their life, from money to love to spirituality. But that’s not how it works. You have to take what you’ve learned and apply it to the relevant aspect of your life, which takes time.
Which leads to the second point. Hacks and shortcuts are merely gimmicks people use to try to sell you their product or service. There are no hacks or shortcuts to the things you want in life. You have to chop wood and carry water. Over and over again. And then when you think you may have finally gotten what it is you want, you have to keep chopping wood and carrying water. It’s not glamorous or sexy. But that is the path.
Yes to all of this, Brad. We *must* slow down and sit with things for them to take hold. The relentless push to the Next Thing robs us of the thing in hand, which leads us to thinking there are shortcuts or, and this is terrifying, into thinking that the superficial gloss is all there is.
Gut-wrenching and hopeful too. You are continuing to create Penhollow and it will be a work of art.
As I was reading your description of the relentless pushing, I recognized that that is what so many visual artists are advised to do. Make reels, add music, write clever text. Tell the story behind the work. Show your process. It's endless. I have not done it and I couldn't really explain why until you explained it here.
I do think art is magic in that an idea or a vision or a tune or a plot comes into our heads. We use our very non-magical tools such as paint and brushes, or notes and instruments, or words and create something tangible where there was nothing before.
I wonder whether a writer like Thomas Pynchon could have made it in today's world. Zero public appearances. No photo of him since 1956. The man completely separated from the Work.
Thank you for reading and for your thoughtful reflection here, Susan.
writing a comment so that they publish your book
Hah—thanks Lenor!
Sorry I was going to tease you about being mad at the machine but also wanting the machine to love you and wanting to be counterculture but courting the same capitalism everyone does. But that seemed mean.
I dunno—that seems like the whole damn Stockholm Syndrome dance right there 🤣
Sorry, I am Midwestern - I can only do passive toxicity in order to insulate myself from self-awareness of my own flaws.
Glad I could be a muse on this one.
The world is just lucky I decided to run with this thread and not our rant about conspiracy theories!
They aren't theories if they are true.
"And now we’re building AI designed to replace human creativity, while insisting that human creativity has no value worth protecting. OpenAI can swallow every book in print to train GPT-5 and refuse to compensate the authors because the model “transforms” the work. Right. Just like a photocopier “transforms” a document by making it slightly blurrier."
Right after reading your Content discontent, I read an article in IPWatchdog's newsletter about the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism July 16th hearing titled “Too Big to Prosecute?: Examining the AI Industry’s Mass Ingestion of Copyrighted Works for AI Training.” The article reported that Subcommittee Chair Josh Hawley (R-MO) called generative AI companies’ use of copyrighted works to train their chatbots and other large language models (LLMs) “the largest IP theft in American history” and rejected the suggestion from some witnesses that the courts should determine the path forward. Senator Hawley referring to the Meta case said, “If the answer is that the biggest corporation in the world worth trillions of dollars can come take an individual author’s work like Mr. Baldacci, lie about it, hide it, profit off of it, and there’s nothing our law does about that, we need to change the law.” https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/07/20/hawley-says-congress-must-step-in-to-fix-ai-companies-mass-theft-of-copyrighted-works/id=190469/#
David Baldacci, an author, was a witness at the hearing. You can read his testimony and those of the other witnesses here. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/too-big-to-prosecute-examining-the-ai-industrys-mass-ingestion-of-copyrighted-works-for-ai-training.
This is one policy area where I agree with Senator Hawley. One of the witnesses said the courts should decide these difficult issues of fair use, which means we will have conflicting interpretations of what constitutes fair use, resulting, in my opinion, in a lack of protection for creative artists.
Andrew Berger, a copyright litigator, posted a thoughtful post a week ago on LinkedIn about a recent AI fair use decision, 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘻 v. Anthropic. Here is an excerpt:
"On summary judgment 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘻 held Anthropic’s use of the legally acquired & pirated books for [AI] training was fbar
Judge Alsup found the training even with the pirated books to be “quintessentially transformative” because it was for a new purpose: to generate new responses to prompts.
The court also found no market harm because the models didn’t output “any exact copies” or “infringing knockoffs.”
Instead, the models generate an “explosion” of competing works the court welcomed because they furthered the purpose of copyright: to increase original output, not protect its creators.
But how will that purpose be furtbhered if the creators are not protected?"
This court's reasoning is an example of why I agree with Senator Hawley that legislation is needed to change the law to stop the theft of our creative artists works by companies that should be paying for the rights to use them to train their large language models.
You can read Andrew Berger's 's full post here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewbergeresq_ai-fairuse-copyright-activity-7356315669740625921-sYad?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD7EqgBpHotUbynJoJrP4fhp_SXxawQmsQ.
Two things jumped out at me as I read this piece.
First, integration. As you pointed out, we are rushed from one thing to the next without the opportunity to take what we’ve just watched/read/listen to and integrate it. We don’t sit with it, roll it around our grey matter, and ponder. We don’t break it down into a more basic form and try to see how the underlying message or principles can apply to our own lives. And it’s not just with art or content. Everyone wants the Cliff Notes version of how to get X in their life, from money to love to spirituality. But that’s not how it works. You have to take what you’ve learned and apply it to the relevant aspect of your life, which takes time.
Which leads to the second point. Hacks and shortcuts are merely gimmicks people use to try to sell you their product or service. There are no hacks or shortcuts to the things you want in life. You have to chop wood and carry water. Over and over again. And then when you think you may have finally gotten what it is you want, you have to keep chopping wood and carrying water. It’s not glamorous or sexy. But that is the path.
Yes to all of this, Brad. We *must* slow down and sit with things for them to take hold. The relentless push to the Next Thing robs us of the thing in hand, which leads us to thinking there are shortcuts or, and this is terrifying, into thinking that the superficial gloss is all there is.
The work is the shortcut. There is no other way.
I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people living in the gloss.
Gut-wrenching and hopeful too. You are continuing to create Penhollow and it will be a work of art.
As I was reading your description of the relentless pushing, I recognized that that is what so many visual artists are advised to do. Make reels, add music, write clever text. Tell the story behind the work. Show your process. It's endless. I have not done it and I couldn't really explain why until you explained it here.
I do think art is magic in that an idea or a vision or a tune or a plot comes into our heads. We use our very non-magical tools such as paint and brushes, or notes and instruments, or words and create something tangible where there was nothing before.
Thank you. Susan Trivers
I wonder whether a writer like Thomas Pynchon could have made it in today's world. Zero public appearances. No photo of him since 1956. The man completely separated from the Work.
Thank you for reading and for your thoughtful reflection here, Susan.
“Gotta get those clicks, man!”
Have I done more harm than good by liking this post?
Regardless, I like this observation about art and the artist: “I’m trying to wrestle meaning from entropy.”