171–180 of 705 posts
So they can go fuck themselves, or alternatively they can make their super advanced AI reproduce my copyright statement and license every time it copies my code. Which shouldn't be difficult at all.
If you draw a cat then you need to pay authors of every cat drawing you ever saw. Also all the owners of actual cats you saw. It's only fair.
> But other than netting a hefty fee for the lawyers who bring the suit, what is the endgame, exactly? Pay people whose works you want to extract value from, it is that easy… Unless the whole point of this "AI" bubble is to create monetary value for the companies and their shareholders without being held accountable. I do not mean that creating, configuring, tuning a model, or even compiling a massive dataset is not…
Apparently AI already passes US medical exams. I guess it deserves to be beaten into the ground by estabilished copyright behemoths and lawyers.
AI directly threatens the livelihoods of most white collar workers, most of us here included. Of course they'll use any means available to cobble together a cartel to maintain the human monopoly on production of intellectual and creative works. Now is the best time to do it, thanks to the incredible flashiness and popular awareness of these new bits of software.
However, what’s happening here is different. What people are reacting against is that (often dirt poor) artists unwillingly become part of a commercial supply chain, while corporations protect their IP the usual way, backed by the full force of the government even on foreign land.
If copyright is abolished entirely, at least there’s some form of level playing field. But this becomes yet another step towards a more exploitative economic environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>AI directly threatens the livelihoods of most white collar workers, most of us here included. This reads like an argument from the English Luddites[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Birth_of_the_movement
Sure, but what happened to the luddites?
maybe one country or another will outlaw generative ai or ai art or media synthesis or whatever it ends up being called, but presumably they'll be left behind by rapid cultural and technical development in whatever countries don't the cat is out of the bag, the worms are out of the can, the feathers have blown away in the wind these developments seem very likely to be central to programming, all other kinds of engine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI companies can ask for permission if they want to train their models on other people's works Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessar…
> “Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books?” I’m not able to read billions of books in less than an hour. Even if we agree that machine learning is like human learning, scale commonly matters in law.
I think you underestimate the sheer volume of data + conclusions the brain ingests and processes on a daily basis, primarily through unconscious experience.
> Like a cruise ship heading for a scary iceberg, AI is in trouble, and the problems are mostly below the surface. I'm not sure why the author is out here talking like a lawsuit brought by the author of Typography For Lawyers is going to bring down Microsoft like it's a foregone conclusion, but people are going to be training models on public data for personal gain from here out no matter what happens. The cat is out…
If copyright ends up being enforced, it’ll affect commercial deployment. We’re in for an inevitable paradigm shift soon anyway, so if we need any guardrails, we better install them before we open the floodgates.
I'm hooked on Stable Diffusion. It's the most impressive sudden leaps in technology in my 30 or so years of being old enough to understand it. Much of the power it has, is based on the material it is trained on, and I'm very appreciative of the work and effort that was made in order to make it what it is. And, it's only getting started. That said... I get it. Huggingface are working on a diffusion based model for mus…
Monetary risk, that's why. Cross the wrong people and you'll find yourself extradited to another country and tried for copyright laws you didn't even know existed. I'm honestly surprised OpenAI models know about Disney properties.
> Dance Diffusion is also built on datasets composed entirely of copyright-free and voluntarily provided music and audio samples. Because diffusion models are prone to memorization and overfitting, releasing a model trained on copyrighted data could potentially result in legal issues. In honoring the intellectual property of artists while also complying to the best of their ability with the often strict copyright standards of the music industry, keeping any kind of copyrighted material out of training data was a must.
Reads very different to any statement made by Hugginface or the LION database regarding stable diffusion, which do not mention the concept of an artist or artist work a single time.
And Hugginface are the only ones open about it. Midjourney and Dall-E and Imagen most assuredly doing the same for their black boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only addresses part of the problem. Open source depends upon copyright in order to be enforceable. Copyright depends upon attribution. While I am confident that most (not all) open source authors would be happy if the license remains intact, what happens when someone infringes upon an open source license? Say that someone incorporates code generated by an AI based upon open source licenses into a closed source p…
That's what I am saying. Stop doing that. Train co-pilot, or whatever, to follow the terms of the license.
AI is just a tool, do you also sue the company that sold the paintbrush with which an infringing painting was made?