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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 442 posts

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

#381

Post by [deleted] »

simbolit wrote: post #380
Retric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.

"the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?

[deleted]

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

#382

Post by Retric »

simbolit wrote: post #380
Retric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.

"the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?

That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning.

It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said.

Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.

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

#383

Post by gaganyaan »

panta wrote: post #77
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…

It's a matter of scale. No human being can ingest ALL existing images. If it was the case that the average human artist was able to replicate any other work, without effort, probably we would have had two effects: first, we'd have much less works of art (because the gains would have been eliminated, so why bother), and second, copyright law would have been much more restrictive. This is exactly what we should do: avo…

The only way we end up with only monopolistic players being the only ones that benefit from AI is if we misapply the outdated concept of copyright here. Open source models like SD are the path away from monopolization.

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

#384

Post by nirvdrum »

naasking wrote: post #355
nirvdrum wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You didn’t elaborate on the points I asked about. You literally argued with the response from a chat bot. You can’t just say “QED, I win”. Until I get satisfactory definitions the rest of your response is unjustifiable.

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

#385

Post by nirvdrum »

corethree wrote: post #299
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…

How do you know the answer isn't an hallucination? Maybe it made the answer up creatively and is lying to you about its own capabilities. The fact that it knows the definition of creativity makes it's answer suspect. It's like saying this: "I am not capable of speaking or understanding English, what you see here is just a statistical prediction of the next most likely words. I do not in actuality understand or speak…

Well, we know how these things are built and how they function. This isn’t Skynet building an army and being coy about it.

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

#386

Post by simbolit »

Retric wrote: post #382
simbolit wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?

That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law…

Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud.

To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well.

that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh.

Have a good evening/morning (wherever you are located)

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

#387

Post by Retric »

simbolit wrote: post #386
Retric wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law…

Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud. To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well. that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh. Have a good…

Alphanullmeric is taking about IP in a legal context. They want the laws to change, rather than say killing off humanity which would also eventually eliminate IP.

Legality is thus the basis for the discussion.

Also, changing the text when you quote someone is dishonest and disrespectful. Swapping in ‘ip’ for ‘Intellectual property’ may seem meaningless to you, but they typed it out for a reason.

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

#388

Post by corethree »

hunter2_ wrote: post #332
corethree wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but the minute you look at copywrited work you made a copy of it in your brain and have broken the law.

Isn't the more severe offense, and the one relevant here, more about distributing a recording than making a recording? Nobody will care if your brain has a copyrighted melody saved in it, but they'll care if you start putting it (or something substantially equivalent) all over the place where others can obtain it.

So if I put that work in an LLM it shouldn't be a big deal.

The LLM is just deriving unique works in between the data points along that best fit curve.

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

#389

Post by corethree »

snovv_crash wrote: post #313
corethree wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying humans can break copyright but machines can't? You realized machines didn't break copyright right? Machines can't do this yet so it's a non issue at this point. Humans were sued in this lawsuit because humans are the ones who did this action. The lawsuit is about this: I can copy stuff into my brain but not into my cybernetic assistive brain.

Copyright holders aren't complaining about the training per se, they are complaining about the distribution and outputs of the models which in many cases directly regurgitate the training data.

In most cases it won't regurgitate the same training data. What happens is the model essentially models a full on continuous curve that best fits in-between the training data. The amount of points on that curve is 9999999x more then the training data and that 999999 is not an exaggeration. It's likely too small of a number.

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

#390

Post by corethree »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #126
corethree wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us the sum total of our experiences and that includes copy written work. Holding an LLM guilty for that is like holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work.

it's interesting that you start from the assumption that a piece of software should be judged by the same measure as a human.

The person(s) being sued is human. A human committed this act.
Post reply on HN