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

Pulling my site from Google over AI training

tracydurnell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#91

Post by Our_Benefactors »

blargey wrote: post #77
theonlybutlet wrote: post #59

I can't understand the outrage. In practice absolutely nothing has changed. It is reading and learning. A person would read and learn. This has no bearing on plagiarism or copyright. A work can be considered plagiarized or to breach copyright if the author hasn't even seen or come across the copyrighted/published work. This is no different. I can write some code and use it, subconsciously referencing a work. If I don…

A human cannot learn from and re/produce work they view at the speed, volume, and scale that “AI” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “learning”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “learning” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I c…

A human cannot perform arithmetic at the speed, volume, and scale that “computation” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “mathematics”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “ariithmetic” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I can’t understand why one would expect people to go “oh it’s technically ‘math’ I guess I’ll ignore all the consequences that weren’t present when it was just humans doing the mathematical operations”.

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#92

Post by gmerc »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #91
blargey wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human cannot learn from and re/produce work they view at the speed, volume, and scale that “AI” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “learning”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “learning” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I c…

A human cannot perform arithmetic at the speed, volume, and scale that “computation” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “mathematics”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “ariithmetic” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I can’t un…

Yet we have not banned the calculator but accept it empowers even people who did not spent time in school to learn math.

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#93

Post by theonlybutlet »

archargelod wrote: post #90
JohnFen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an important point that I think escapes a lot of people, both on the pro-AI and anti-AI side. Although everyone probably wishes otherwise, there isn't really a hard objective line for determining if something is infringing or not. And that's actually a good thing! But it means that, in the end, it's up to a judge to weigh a bunch of different, rather fuzzy, factors.

Law is not a static entity, it's morphing and evolving to suit our ideals today. Learning wasn't an issue until it is. We could very well distinguish between machine learning and human learning although they're no different from each other in principle. And although, we can't say that ML is plagiarism, at scale it breaches our other moral principles like privacy and individual identity. Let's say in 10 years from now…

The situation you describe is exactly that which has already existed for the last two decades with Google using that data for their search engine. If it's public it can be read.

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#94

Post by happymellon »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #91
blargey wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human cannot learn from and re/produce work they view at the speed, volume, and scale that “AI” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “learning”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “learning” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I c…

A human cannot perform arithmetic at the speed, volume, and scale that “computation” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “mathematics”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “ariithmetic” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I can’t un…

Do you actually think that as a society we don't view maths differently after the computer?

We absolutely do, and expectations of what's possible are completely different.

It's a good thing, but at the moment language copyrights is wielded by corporations and ignored by corporations. Either we make copyrights like maths and discard them, or we hold corporation's to the same standards that they hold us to.

Do you really think that of I train my model on Mickey Mouse and then go ahead and generate "not Mickey" that Disney won't try and sue the crap out of me? Almost all these complaints boil down to different standards for them versus us.

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#95

Post by blibble »

zero_shift wrote: post #87
CatWChainsaw wrote: post #42

Comments are bound to be spicy on this one. I always love it when techbros say that AI learning and human learning are exactly the same, because reading one thing at a time at a biological pace and remembering takeaway ideas rather than verbatim passages is obviously exactly the same thing as processing millions of inputs at once and still being able to regurgitate sources so perfectly that verbatim copyrighted conte…

They only believe it because they think their own labour isn't under threat. Think .

what do you mean, they'll get a whole $20k bonus out of it

then be competing with it for the rest of their lives as it slowly reduces their labour potential to zero

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#98

Post by [deleted] »

ElvisTrout wrote: post #85
blargey wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human cannot learn from and re/produce work they view at the speed, volume, and scale that “AI” does, nor can that human be infinitely replicated and farmed out. When describing this gap in capabilities, or the consequences of “learning”, “orders of magnitude” would be a comical understatement. Existing conventions around “learning” are built on assumptions of human scale, and the expected consequences thereof. I c…

Wow. It’s like the printing press! Reproduction has hit the next jump in scale point

[deleted]

Re: Pulling my site from Google over AI training

#99

Post by ziofill »

theonlybutlet wrote: post #93
archargelod wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is not a static entity, it's morphing and evolving to suit our ideals today. Learning wasn't an issue until it is. We could very well distinguish between machine learning and human learning although they're no different from each other in principle. And although, we can't say that ML is plagiarism, at scale it breaches our other moral principles like privacy and individual identity. Let's say in 10 years from now…

The situation you describe is exactly that which has already existed for the last two decades with Google using that data for their search engine. If it's public it can be read.

Public book libraries have been free to read since centuries, and yet no single human has ever read even 1% of them. We can't ignore that different scales = different consequences. (and to put them together the authors were paid)
Post reply on HN