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

111–120 of 168 posts

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

#111

Post by chii »

naet wrote: post #20
uvnq wrote: post #5

Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pie…

I think this is a fallacy that I see a lot in recent AI discussions. An LLM is not the same as a human brain. You might see some superficial similarities in both being able to produce a block of text, but the method by which the text is produced is entirely different. For example, we can't download entire libraries of books instantly to our brains and then reproduce those books word for word in memory. Things that op…

> LLMs ... can often reproduce that copyright data. It's an open question how we regulate this.

why isn't existing copyright protection sufficient to regulate this? Photoshop can be used today to reproduce copyrighted data just as well.

This has nothing to do with "license to train". I do not believe existing copyright holders have this right granted to them by law - it is a right that is given to society for all works.

An artist learning a style, and producing another piece in the same style, is allowed today. This should be allowed, regardless of whether it is done via using an AI, or via years of training.

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

#112

Post by chii »

fouric wrote: post #103
chii wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they aren't arguing about language semantics. The argument (which, i don't buy) is that the training data set is deriving benefit without paying money back to the original creator of the data. But the only change now is speed - after all, education has always been possible from said data from the internet, free of royalties. These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different?

> These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different? Is every work in the training set licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?

> licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?

why does this need to be done? The training is not modification and redistribution.

If somebody coerced an AI to output something verbatim (or close enough to be called a modification/derivative), they are infringing copyright as it currently exists.

But the AI model itself does not constitute redistribution.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

twelve40 wrote: post #99
pier25 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a big difference is you cannot have a single human consume and remember everything ever written. Another big difference is that that human cannot be scaled so that it can chat with millions of people at the same time. Concentrating all knowledge into a single entity controlled by a for profit corporation using opaque methods will have consequences. Doesn't really matter if it's a biological or digital entity.

Exactly, humans learning is a manual, individual process of improving oneself, upskilling, and hopefully contributing back to the same field at a higher level. The other is industrial strip-mining of all information in the world for the benefit of a corporation and bulk de-valuing of human creation and contributions in the process. "Take all you can give nothing back".

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by anon84873628 »

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.

Show me how a backhoe is completely different from what humans with shovels do.

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

#115

Post by melagonster »

jelled wrote: post #75
Gigachad wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its similar to many other dilemmas with new tech. When you are out in public, you don't have an expectation of privacy. People can see you, they can take photos of you. The worker at the cafe will probably remember you and your order. This is fine. But when tech does the exact same thing but with scale where everywhere you go, everything you buy, etc is tracked and analyzed, it's now questionably immoral despite lega…

I like this example and I'd agree that tracking people at scale can be immoral depending on the circumstances. But to me it feels that way because something is being taken from you. You've lost your agency to be anonymous or to leave your past behind. But I don't see how an LLM training on your works deprives you of something you had before.

artists put their artwork online, let people use these in an acceptable range. usually, learning (not copy) from it is acceptable. but there are more controversy around generating million artwork have same personal style, let artists lose job and let their families starve.

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

#117

Post by NopeSlide »

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.

The 'why' does not matter, real property rights should not be given up for the sake of completely speculative societal gain. Besides, the incentive to create medicine will always existed as long as people get sick, independent of whether you can exercise monopoly, it's not like Ibn Sina's medical manuals came about thanks to any notion of copyright, the dude was literally just rich and bored enough to do it.

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #84
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.

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by musicale »

hollasch wrote: post #64
paulcole wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> handing a friend a ~cassette tape~

Never was a crime, but it's explicitly permitted by the AHRA (which also enacted a tape tax.)

Unfortunately you may be out of luck on the thumb drive - you'd probably need to use DAT or "music" CD-R media, which include the Digital Audio Technology [DART] tax/royalty. (See also Apple's 2001-era Rip,Mix,Burn vs. 2023's Rent,Mix,Stream.)

This is of course a bummer for DJs who would like to stream or distribute their sets and mixes.

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

#120

Post by lisasays »

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.

Show me how it is completely different from what humans do.

Because nearly everything it generates ranges from, at best, trite and hackneyed (nearly all of its writing) to utterly meritless drivel (literally every AI-generated music sample I've heard).

Human-generated content can also be quite disappointing - but the high end is very different from anything AI can (currently) create.

Post reply on HN