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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by williamcotton »

Retric wrote: post #128
williamcotton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doh, I picked one that flew too close to the sun! That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.

Again depends on what is meant by style… Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.

I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed.

Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough.

Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a wizardry school and copied verbatim plot elements. It was not the right example to use.

Here’s what I mean by style. Reggae music. How different is one reggae song from another? What about when a reggae musician sells the rights to one song and then write another song in their own style? Are they infringing on the previous work they just sold to a music publisher?

Here’s what happened when John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-...

This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”

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

#132

Post by candiodari »

lisasays wrote: post #121
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 like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work. I think you have a ways to go with proving that assertion.

Well, here's proof: If a human is not provided with input of existing (apparently copyrighted) works, this is what happens to a human mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron

So clearly humans are using existing "works", without proper crediting, to produce even just language. There are more examples of this.

So like most criticism of AI, this is yet another appeal to the magic of human minds/soul/god/... It's a one sided criticism. Yes AI is not quite at an identical level of intelligence as humans, but like most AI limitations, this is a limitation shared by both human minds and artificial intelligence algorithms: it doesn't work without "stealing" others' works.

In other words: when you answer "Yes" or "No" to a question, any question, should you credit your mother? Because you're most definitely copying her use of those words ...

Obviously for copyright to be even remotely reasonable there needs to be a "cutoff". Copyrighted works are just existing works, expressed to a latent space of higher dimension low enough that a human mind can analyze it, but high enough that it's "not obviously a copy".

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

#133

Post by paulcole »

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?

What’s a cassette tape?

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

#134

Post by Retric »

williamcotton wrote: post #131
Retric wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again depends on what is meant by style… Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.

I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough. Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a w…

Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance:

The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.”

The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.

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

#135

Post by mensetmanusman »

m3kw9 wrote: post #40

In the same token if I can memorize very well, and I read as much as gpt did, and made a living from that knowledge, that could also be thief, but it doesn’t apply to me because I don’t do it at scale

Scale certainly matters.

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

#136

Post by williamcotton »

Retric wrote: post #134
williamcotton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough. Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a w…

Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith. ” The Supreme C…

Ok, so then back at you:

That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team.

One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin...

An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story.

Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre?

Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after?

What are you arguing for?

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

#137

Post by danielrpa »

What a clueless article. Almost every new lasting technology in history has at one point labeled criminal or potentially destructive to mankind. From cassette and VHS tapes, to radio, computers and the Internet,everything at some point was considered for regulation or deemed irrelevant.

Humans learn by "theft". We learn language by observing word patterns created by others (books, speeches, TV shows) and correlating them to outcomes. While ChatGPT doesn't yet display human-like intelligence, it's clear to me that it is taking a step in the direction of how the human brain actually learns.

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

#138

Post by Retric »

williamcotton wrote: post #136
Retric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith. ” The Supreme C…

Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular…

I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists.

> Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre?

As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...

Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style”

That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.

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

#139

Post by williamcotton »

Retric wrote: post #138
williamcotton wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular…

I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that ar…

All it shows is that rights-holders with a large legal war chest can win specific cases. There is not a single musician or songwriter that I have met who wasn’t appalled by the Robin Thicke ruling. Luckily history didn’t repeat itself with Ed Sheeran.

Here's a concise explanation of why this was a terrible ruling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI

If the entire music industry operated in such a manner it would suffocate creativity.

I think what you’re really trying to do is win an argument that supports your opinions on LLMs.

Generally speaking, the Robin Thicke case was an aberration. If it was the norm then the music industry would look incredibly different. As in, there wouldn’t be a music industry.

We can go back and forth cherry-picking court cases or we can discuss the doctrines that courts are encouraged to follow, like the idea-expression distinction.

An overwhelming number of copyright cases have been decided based on this doctrine! It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise!

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

#140

Post by Retric »

williamcotton wrote: post #139
Retric wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that ar…

All it shows is that rights-holders with a large legal war chest can win specific cases. There is not a single musician or songwriter that I have met who wasn’t appalled by the Robin Thicke ruling. Luckily history didn’t repeat itself with Ed Sheeran. Here's a concise explanation of why this was a terrible ruling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI If the entire music industry operated in such a manner it wo…

I understand your perspective, but I think you’re still missing my point.

Winning a court case isn’t safe, getting the court case thrown out before it needs to be litigated is. You really don’t want to be in a position where someone with deep pockets can make a reasonable argument for infringement.

The question of LLM’s is really secondary. It’s likely they could win, but that in itself is very dangerous territory.

Post reply on HN