Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#351

Post by nirvdrum » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

corethree wrote: post #293

nirvdrum wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. If they were, they would be taught rules & techniques and set off to their own devices to draw, like humans. But, they can't and they're not. LLMs and humans don't learn or create in the same way. Moreover, there's no reason we should grant LLMs the full rights and privileges of humans.

If the content generated by an LLM does not exist anywhere else... it is by definition "creative."

Which is precisely why I said “genuine creativity” in hopes of avoiding pedantry around word etymology. It’s hard to have these discussions when people are deliberately being obtuse. By this definition, nearly everything is creative making any discussion about it meaningless. So, let’s use the connotative meaning.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#352

Post by alphanullmeric » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #284

alphanullmeric wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition of force is the definition of force. The definition I gave you was literally "literal force", and you understood that to mean something different from your interpretation of force. You are the only one trying to change definitions here. If the court orders me to do something, that's force. If you think it's somehow voluntary, then I have a few examples I'd like to ask you about. I have no idea what inju…

Pathetic display. There is not only one definition of any word, as you can readily ascertain by consulting a good dictionary, legal or otherwise. Yes, we've already established that you don't get the rights to pixels, sounds and ideas We've established that that's what you want, and that you're unwilling to even acknowledge the concept of authorship. Your efforts at rhetorical browbeating are clumsy at best.

But it doesn't matter what your definition is. If your definition of force includes copying, then we're done. That's what I wanted to hear you say. If not, but you want to go after people that copy, then you don't believe that force is only justified in response to force. If you want to tell me about how court orders aren't force, then I'll ask you if they're equally voluntary in a couple situations where they don't benefit you.

That's right, I do not want people to own pixels, sounds and ideas. I don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of something that isn't property. Problem?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#353

Post by alphanullmeric » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:18 PM UTC

gumballindie wrote: post #59

alphanullmeric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. You said “it’s the law”. I responded with “it’s the law”. You lack consistency, more at 12. I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it…

I dont care about what holds universally “true” in some peole’s minds about _my_ property. That’s communism. I am an individual therefore i care about _my_ ownership. Communism wanted to make everything belong to everyone. Philosophical darwinism proved that that concept is wrong. What’s mine is mine, period. I never pirate software and no, I dont think piracy is a good idea either. I believe in open source and that…

Pixels, sounds and ideas aren't your property. That has nothing to do with communism. Force is only justified in response to force, and you've still yet to prove that my copying of your ideas is forceful enough to warrant government intervention.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#354

Post by nirvdrum » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #297

nirvdrum wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. So, to round out the inevitable circular discussion I've gone ahead and asked ChatGPT for you: Genuine creativity, often attributed to humans, is the ability to generate, imagine, or invent something new and original that has value or meaning. It involves thinking beyond existing boundaries, making connections between different pieces of infor…

> Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, there…

Define “understanding”. Please provide a formal definition for “vague intuition”.

These sorts of clipped sentences without any supporting context are understood to be delivered in bad faith. If you want to discuss in good faith, then elaborate. From here it sure looks like you wanted to score points by derailing the discussion on what you’ve deemed to be poor word choice.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#355

Post by naasking » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

nirvdrum wrote: post #354

naasking wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, there…

Define “understanding”. Please provide a formal definition for “vague intuition”. These sorts of clipped sentences without any supporting context are understood to be delivered in bad faith. If you want to discuss in good faith, then elaborate. From here it sure looks like you wanted to score points by derailing the discussion on what you’ve deemed to be poor word choice.

I've elaborated plenty in the post you literally just responded to. Nothing further needs to be said. Suffice it to say that your original claim was unjustifiable given what we currently know.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#356

Post by creer » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:39 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #75

ballenf wrote: post #66

Can someone explain again how an ML system scanning and training on a copyrighted work is different from a highly skilled artist doing the same? There are artists that can study a painting for a few minutes and then recreate it from memory. There are artists who study a particular body of work so long that they can create more works indistinguishable in style. If an artist recreates a copyrighted work or creates a de…

Let me change the argument around: Why is it assumed that because an artwork is freely available on the internet, you are allowed to train a machine to reproduce it, being in its totality or just details that are used in the creation of new works? IE why isn't it that an artist could say, hey I'm letting you see this painting, but you are not allowed to sit down with a canvas and learn how to reproduce it? Because yo…

The question is about copyright law. You can raise other legal theories or ask congress to create an entirely new class of intellectual property law. Sure. The lawsuit is about whether copyright applies, it seems to me.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#357

Post by creer » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #71

Having done way more corporate court than I want (patents, mergers, liquidation), I’m increasingly convinced that the judicial system is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that the law in 2023 US is so obscure and opaque and how judges come to their ruling seems to be by their total whim with no actual philosophy other than maintenance of the system. Further I’m extremely unimpressed with the vast majority of judge…

The court IS about maintaining the system. That's the plan. If you want to change it, then you need to change the law and that's the job of Congress.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#358

Post by notnullorvoid » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:47 PM UTC

raincole wrote: post #142

My perspective is there are two different main issues about AI (especially Stable Diffusion). One is how it works consistently with the current law. Ml model is basically a highly lossy compressed data format. If you collect millions of copyrighted images, merge them into a super big image, then compress it into a .jpg. Are you allowed to redistribute this .jpg file? To me, it's mostly depending on how lossy (low qua…

It's not compression.

Compression implies the input can be reconstructed from the output (lossy or not), in the case of these ml models the input is the training data and the output is the model. You can't reconstruct even a fraction of that training data using the model alone therefore it is not compression even in the most lossy sense.

The model produced though can be an efficient compressor/decompressor, which produces a lossy output image when given a input of prompt and/or image.

All that aside, the whole human/machine thing is a dumb argument. It's humans that are using the tool. The question shouldn't be does a machine have rights to do X, but rather do humans the have right to use and build such tools?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#359

Post by creer » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:49 PM UTC

nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

Plenty of people create with minimal profit effort. Outstanding creation happens with minimal profit all the time.

To profit from creation you have to publish - what alternative do you propose?

So that I don't understand this idea that anything will "kill publishing". Copyright changes the economic math around publishing, sure - and most of the time currently not for the better. That will keep evolving but there is no risk of killing creation or publishing.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#360

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:54 PM UTC

nologic01 wrote: post #172

marcinzm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? Because they enjoy it? Or do you see artists as some type of corporate drone who hates the very act of making art? That's like asking why anyone wo…

Excuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of the enjoyment comes from other people appreciating, acknowledging and, yes, remunerating that creative work. The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime…

> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange.

I make a painting. I display it. My neighbor sees the painting, studies it for a while, goes home, and makes a painting based on what he learned from mine. People still enjoy my painting, still credit me with making it, and if they like it might still pay for a copy. My neighbor, having devised a way to make paintings really quickly, sells paintings for cheap. Can I send him a bill because he's making money based on something he learned from me?

Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; if it only creates what copyright law would consider derivative works, then that's another matter.