Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

americamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#61

Post by Retric »

Gigachad wrote: post #43
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would that be a copyright violation? Quite possibly, it depends on what specifically is meant by style and the degree to which the new work is transformative.

Style is not copyrightable.

Again depends on what is meant by style. Another post in this thread suggested plot elements as part of style Aka “a wizardry school for preteens.”

Sharing a few surface levels elements like that is fine, but if a one page description could equally well be used to describe both works you’re well over the line.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#62

Post by pydry »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #55
TechBro8615 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…

If there is no IP protection, it is illogical to invest money in new materials R&D or medicines.

Illogical for the private sector. Publicly funded research is probably more effective anyway though.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#64

Post by hollasch »

paulcole wrote: post #59
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #28

These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.

It doesn’t matter if the mechanic is identical or not. Think about handing a friend a thumb drive full of music versus downloading the same files from Napster. One of those activities can be sued out of existence.

Sorry, I had the "handing a friend a ~cassette tape~ thumb drive is a crime" pounded into my skull since the 80's. What's your point?

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#65

Post by danpalmer »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #28

These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.

I have a lot of sympathy for these viewpoints, but I too find the discourse around LLMs to be lacking when it comes to differentiation from humans.

"[LLMs] are just theft", "LLMs don't _know_ anything", "LLMs don't have a concept of truth", "LLMs aren't sentient", these are all statements that feel reasonable, but fall down when you consider that we don't have good scientific definitions for what knowledge is, what sentience is, what a sense of truth is, and so on.

I do think that LLMs are very far from human level, but I also think we need to understand that humans aren't anything special, we're just one point on many axes, animals are at other points, and LLMs are somewhere else and trending towards something more like where humans are at.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#66

Post by pmarreck »

smitty1e wrote: post #38
userbinator wrote: post #34

I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.

Not a new observation: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

I mean...

Just imagine living 2000 years ago and not ever imagining just the massive slice of inventions from 1900 to 2023 lol

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#67

Post by pmarreck »

I welcome dissonant viewpoints, but I'm going to have to object to this one on the grounds of all works being derivative. This is just... mass derivation basically, but so is a creative-writing human.

I also object to its clickbaity format of "[Contentions thing A] is not [completely unproven hyperbolic thing B]; it is [completely unproven hyperbolic thing C]".

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#68

Post by fzeroracer »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #28

These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.

What's the difference between a human being remembering someone exists and a photo of a person? They both do the same thing, so why should we regulate where, how and why photos are taken and used?

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#69

Post by williamcotton »

Retric wrote: post #54
williamcotton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Tonya Grotter, the Russian Harry Potter? https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/569984... You can’t copyright the idea of a wizardry school for preteens. You can’t copyright a style. You can definitely trademark your own name.

Edit: It was judged as copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter A wizardry school for preteens isn’t on its own particularly unusual. But the question becomes how similar would the works be if the original was never published. You aren’t in the clear of a few paragraph book summery would apply equally well to both works. Barring the normal exceptions, Spaceballs is making reference to other…

That Russian book series is a direct knock-off. Even the font looks similar.

It’s also not a copyright violation because the question of how similar it is to the idea of Harry Potter is irrelevant with regards to copyright.

If it was too similar and it was actively confusing consumers then it would be an issue of trademark.

By making the protagonist a girl without glasses it does enough to differentiate itself that no reasonable confusion would ensue.

As long as the books don’t contain verbatim copies of text from Harry Potter they are non-infringing!

Post reply on HN