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

81–90 of 168 posts

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

#81

Post by Retric »

williamcotton wrote: post #69
Retric wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Except the book you’re referring to was infringing.

“Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter

So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.

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

#82

Post by rootw0rm »

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.

Unless it takes real skill, real knowledge to create the workforce and tooling necessary to produce such a thing. With no IP protection I'm pretty sure that good old-fashioned corporate secrecy would still be quite profitable.

If in the case of medicines, instead of having carte-blanche to milk obscene profits for a long time, corpos were just limited to making decent money for a short while....that would probably work out in humanity's interest. Part of the reason medicine is so expensive in the West IMO, is the expense that's been mandated by the insane regulatory capture in the pharma industry.

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

#83

Post by qudat »

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.

AI is teaching us about ourselves and this is only the beginning. Hidden beneath the veil of productivity we see its true feature: AI is a mirror; and we are looking right at it.

https://bower.sh/in-love-with-a-ghost

https://bower.sh/what-is-creativity

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

#84

Post by tzs »

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.

I feel obligated to point out that many words in English have more than one meaning. "Theft" is the action of "stealing", and "steal" is one of those words with many meanings.

We can "steal" identities, "steal" bases in baseball, an actor can "steal" the show, a team can with an improbable last minute play can "steal" a game, we can have our hearts "stolen" by a cute kitten, and so on.

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

#85

Post by beerpls »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #46
smeagull wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 year.

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…

Ok I support anti corporation but then how do talented artists make money?

I don’t get this mentality and how it’s always taken to the extreme. Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?

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

#86

Post by qzw »

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.

Human creators are regularly accused of plagiarism, and a common defense is to claim that one accidentally reproduced another work without realizing it. But that defense only works if the copying is very limited. If whole paragraphs are reproduced or the reproduction occurs multiple times, the human is usually considered a plagiarist. Should we judge AIs by the same criteria? If an AI is found to regurgitate some part of its training data on a semi-regular basis, should we consider it a plagiarism engine?

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

#87

Post by JieJie »

qudat wrote: post #83
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.

AI is teaching us about ourselves and this is only the beginning. Hidden beneath the veil of productivity we see its true feature: AI is a mirror; and we are looking right at it. https://bower.sh/in-love-with-a-ghost https://bower.sh/what-is-creativity

Absolutely.

https://www.zipbangwow.com/ainterlude/

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

#88

Post by quitit »

jelled wrote: post #30

I have no idea how the courts will end up resolving this legally. In the meantime I've been thinking a lot about the morality of this alleged theft. Most of us would agree that duplicating and selling someone's book is immoral. Similarly I think we'd all agree that reading multiple books to learn about a topic and then writing your own is perfectly fine. So where does an LLM trained on millions of books fall? Persona…

Setting up the precedent that training from materials = theft seems pretty scary to me. First because it redefines learning as stealing, and secondly because it is without proving that the source material authors are in someway deprived of something - and in a way that is no different than if a human learnt from their materials and produced content with that knowledge.

Let's say the AI was used to generate illegal content, if these words/images are truly non-transformative and still the property of those from which the model was trained this would be a pretty grim scenario. It seems much more reasonable that the person who prompts the system to build such content would be responsible, and thus the true owner of the output.

For this discussion it's useful to keep in mind that ChatGPT and other AI tools don't spontaneously create content, they create it in response to a human "query". It's also the human who decides whether or not the material is useful and suitable (as it often is not accurate, truthful or useful.)

From here it seems more like a discussion about plagiarism and copyright, but both of these occur beyond the scope of the article. I feel authors haven't taken to this angle because the end materials are reasonably different from the sources (notwithstanding memorisation effects.)

I do agree with the sentiment that ChatGPT isn't intelligent (but AI has never claimed to reproduce true intelligence). I prefer the tongue in cheek description of "spicy autocorrect" as a fairer representation of its capability.

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

#89

Post by opan »

beerpls wrote: post #85
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…

Ok I support anti corporation but then how do talented artists make money? I don’t get this mentality and how it’s always taken to the extreme. Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?

Nothing is stopping you from selling free software or public domain stuff. No one is being told they can't make money.
Post reply on HN