First they came for fashion magazines, and I said nothing.

Just to be clear: you're comparing the collapse of the creative restrictions which the state has cleverly branded "intellectual property" to... the holocaust?

Of all of the instances on HN of Godwin's law playing out that I've ever seen, this one is the new cake-taker.

No, I’m not making a comparison to the holocaust. Thanks for asking.

Must we always jump to Nazis?

This is like the fifth time I see someone paraphrasing Niemöller in an ai context, and it's exhausting. It's also near impossible to take the paraphraser seriously.

More to the point, AI is a tool. I could just as well infringe on vanity fair IP using ms-paint. Someone more artistic than me could make a oil-on-canvas copy of their logo too.

Or, to turn your own annoying "argument" against you:

First they came for AI models, and I did not speak out, because I wasn't using them. Then they came for Photoshop, and I did not speak out, because I had never learned to use it. Then they came for for oil and canvas, and now there are no art forms left for me.

This isn’t paraphrasing, it’s referencing. The reference has become synonymous with saying “this is a slippery slope for X”.

As to your use of the argument in the other direction, I’d say it doesn’t work very well because no one with any power is coming for those things.

Nobody at all is "coming for" fashion magazines, but you sure seem to be "coming for" AI. Whether you have any power or not is besides point.

Whether you are paraphrasing or referencing to a famous confessional poem dealing with the Holocaust, the only reasonable interpretation is that you're comparing with the Holocaust. Even if you were unaware of the phrases origins, that's how anyone who does know where it comes from will interpret it. See other comments drawing the same conclusion for reference.

Again. Ai is a tool. It can produce illegal material, just like a pencil can, or a brush with oil and canvas. How are they different? They are not.

All journalism is just duplicating the works and performance of others without their permission for profit anyway.

True, but I guess some societies decided there was a greater good in that very specific context.