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

Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 309 posts

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#141

Post by vouaobrasil »

subroutine wrote: post #106
vouaobrasil wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are right, and I advocate the following: a detailed look at each of these technologies. However, for practical purposes, a direct definition that encompasses every situation is not necessary, but can evolve. For now, I think we do not need a precise definition and we can start with the following: AI such as ChatGPT, LLMs, image generation tools like DALL-E and ohters, should be restricted. As for YouTube's a…

What about the youtube speech to text AI that creates automatic CC transcripts for the hearing impaired? What about the AI that translates transcripts and comments into other languages? (translation certainly makes use of creativity since not every word maps 1:1)

One can always say that AI has some positive uses like CC transcripts. And of course, I can't prevent the platform from making that. I only mean to say that personally, I will not use it in the basic process of video creation. If YouTube ever forces any sort of editing on my videos through AI, I will quit the platform.

But returning to the topic: even though AI has some benefits, I believe that AI in the long run will have negatives that FAR outweigh the positives, so I believe it still should be restricted.

As for translation, well, the AI transcription/translation sucks. I do attempt to put manual captions in my videos as much as I can though.

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#142

Post by dfxm12 »

jmull wrote: post #67

If you want to do this kind of thing, let authors opt-in (or publishers). Yes, it will take effort and probably go slow, but if the tool is really useful and amazing, it should be doable. I suspect the authors are put-off by a couple things: - the text of the works scanned seems like it may be from pirated sources. That poisons the project, no matter what it does with the scans, for many authors. - the use of these s…

Yeah, the article represents the voice of the authors in two tweets, from authors not apparently notable enough to have a wikipedia page. One I couldn't even find on Goodreads. It's obvious there's more to this than just the tweets presented. The article is unhelpful in this regard.

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#143

Post by palata »

danielbln wrote: post #131
palata wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I make a tool where you can enter the title of a book, and get the full text of the book without paying for it. I assume we all agree that would be illegal, right? Now say that instead of distributing that tool as an executable , I distributed it as a library . It would contain all the same books as the illegal executable above, but some developers would need to write an actual executable that would use the libra…

One can use Photoshop to create heinous things which would be highly illegal to sell, or even show. Should we ban Photoshop? I think we agree, that no, that would be silly. Let's assume I train a model on public domain texts only, zero copyrighted material has gone into it. Yet, technically and also practically, the model would have the ability to create illegal, copyright infringing content, given the right input. S…

> One can use Photoshop to create heinous things which would be highly illegal to sell, or even show. Should we ban Photoshop? I think we agree, that no, that would be silly.

This is a different matter, just like saying "we don't make cars illegal even though cars can be used illegally". IMO it is off topic in the context of my post above (or you need to elaborate).

> Let's assume I train a model on public domain texts only, zero copyrighted material has gone into it.

Do you genuinely not see the difference, from the point of view of the copyright holders? If OpenAI could build a version of ChatGPT without using any copyrighted material at all, I agree with you: it should not be made illegal. But the illegal use of it should be. I guess we agree here, but to me that is quite different from training ChatGPT with copyrighted material. The first difference being... well... good luck training ChatGPT without copyrighted material (probably now it's too late anyway, because weights of models trained from copyrighted material are just all over the Internet).

> Also, let's keep in mind that these models are not archives, that contain the original data verbatim. They are effectively lossy compression algorithms, that capture the essence.

Say I creat excutable dat do som kind of loss cmpression tht captred essnce.

First, do you agree that the sentence above is "some kind of lossy compression that captures the essence"? If yes, would you consider it legal for me to use that algorithm on famous books and sell them under my name, or would you think that I abused the copyright of the original material?

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#144

Post by nness »

wrp wrote: post #61

My summary of the case: Someone did statistical analysis of a bunch of texts and created a tool that evaluates your text according to the developed model. Writers accused him of plagiarizing/using the content of their works.

As an aside, this would be completely legal in Japan, as classification and statistical analysis are protected as fair-use.

I wonder if similar language exists in other copyright systems, but I would imagine it is likely the opposite...

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#145

Post by em-bee »

TheChaplain wrote: post #36

I believe that if you are using my book as data/model/whatever for something that makes money, then I want a piece of the action. If it's just a paragraph, fine go ahead. But the whole book? Give me money.

you want money if your book is used for literary analysis?

and even if you could get money for that, it would not be much. if the tool analyses a million books, and then the service makes one million in revenue, no more than $1 of revenue can be attributed to your book. and only a fraction of that would go to the book author because most of the revenue goes into developing and maintaining the tool. so you'd get 10c. you would make more money by spending your time writing actual prose that can be sold, instead of complaining about this particular tool.

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#146

Post by quickthrower2 »

luma wrote: post #85
zinekeller wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it seems majority of HN clings on "AI is fair use!" the same way GIFs (of movie and TV snippets) are "perceived to be fair use" (but is simply not fair use in most cases).

And the other half of HN loses their mind when AI is brought up, completely missing the point made quite clearly in the OP that _no_AI_was_involved_in_any _of_this_. The AI hysteria on this site is ridiculous.

The ai moving goal! No 2023.ai was used. Maybe some 1993.ai. Chat GPT will be considered “just stats” in 2033.

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#147

Post by subroutine »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #141
subroutine wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the youtube speech to text AI that creates automatic CC transcripts for the hearing impaired? What about the AI that translates transcripts and comments into other languages? (translation certainly makes use of creativity since not every word maps 1:1)

One can always say that AI has some positive uses like CC transcripts. And of course, I can't prevent the platform from making that. I only mean to say that personally, I will not use it in the basic process of video creation. If YouTube ever forces any sort of editing on my videos through AI, I will quit the platform. But returning to the topic: even though AI has some benefits, I believe that AI in the long run wil…

So far we have identified like 10 ways you and your audience are currently benefitting from AI, but you haven't mentioned any concrete way AI is harming you.

Also, what do you mean by "forces any sort of editing on my videos through AI". Do you mean like, changing the actual content of your videos?

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#148

Post by jhbadger »

Chris2048 wrote: post #56
LikelyABurner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. “Our algorithms are pretty much the same as human art criticism, so put down the pitchforks you unenlightened scum” is up there with telling them to eat (a Stable Diffusion generated picture of) cake.

People starved while it was suggested they eat cake. Not sure how that relates - are the rights around art crit not the same as AI crit?

Of course they never were suggested to eat cake in reality. 1) The actual French quote was to brioche, a type of bread and mistranslated as cake because brioche wasn't common in English-speaking countries 2) Was never an actual suggestion -- the French philosopher Rousseau was making a sarcastic remark suggesting that if the people didn't have bread, they should eat brioche (a fancier kind of bread) instead. But for some reason in pop culture this was falsely transformed into an actual suggestion by Marie Antoinette

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#149

Post by palata »

TimPC wrote: post #134
palata wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that counting adverbs is steal their work to the point they won't want to publish anymore is clearly FUD. I did not mean that, I am genuinely not sure if you rephrased my point to make it sound wrong or if you missed it. My point was that, IMO, it does not matter to the other whether counting adverbs is stealing their work or not. Probably if you counted them manually they would be fine (and most likely th…

If you want to be a pitchfork mob against generative AI at least understand whether AI is generative or not? Seems like a reasonably low bar. This was non-generative AI, it didn't produce content it output metrics and labelled some existing content.

What makes you think that I don't understand whether AI is generative or not? What I said was that for artists who are complaining about their copyright being abused, it does not matter. 10 years ago they were not complaining, because AIs looking like ChatGPT (to users who see it as a black box) did not exist (or were not remotely as powerful).

And I understand that. It is not their job to learn how the black box works. What they see is that "machine learning models" (which they probably call "AI" now), which are complete black boxes to them (and that's justified: engineers who train them also don't know exactly what they do, but rather test their model on some dataset and judge it from there). And those black boxes are being trained from their copyrighted work and have the potential to generate a ton of money which they will never see.

You can go and say "you guys should learn how the technology works instead of complaining", but let's be honest: probably you are not an expert in AI yourself, and anyway why would the artists have to care? It is a totally legit question that they have: "Why can engineers take my copyrighted work, run it through an algorithm that does stuff no algorithm has done in history at a scale never seen before, make money out of it, and not even consider that maybe they are abusing my IP?".

Before dismissing the artists, you should try to understand their point of view.

Re: Fear of AI just killed a useful tool

#150

Post by palata »

subroutine wrote: post #138
palata wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I make a tool where you can enter the title of a book, and get the full text of the book without paying for it. I assume we all agree that would be illegal, right? Now say that instead of distributing that tool as an executable , I distributed it as a library . It would contain all the same books as the illegal executable above, but some developers would need to write an actual executable that would use the libra…

Google Books already does exactly this. It has a library of the full text of millions of books. Users can search for a passage of text and google will display the paragraph where the passage is found. https://books.google.com example: https://i.ibb.co/DCxJpHN/IMG-3143.jpg

Google does not provide the full book, does it? Exactly like they could provide a few seconds of a song, but not the song in its entirety.
Post reply on HN