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

Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 309 posts

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#41

Post by djohnston »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #31

Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI. One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify). Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely…

There’s no way AI services are going anywhere. If the US kneecaps itself for parasitic rent seekers then China will win and benefit from the productivity these tools produce.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#42

Post by ImPleadThe5th »

8jef wrote: post #5

I have not read the article, just responding to title: Hell yeah! I do wish I.P. dead. Or at least, I wish for a much shorter protection period, and for original authors / artists only. For all the wrong reasons, but primarily, because nothing's sacred. Amen.

Do intellectuals / creatives not deserve the fruits of their own labor?

I get corporate IP is used for a lot of bad. But intellectuals and artists create a lot of value for society in ways that are very hard to monitize as a individual. If we completely kill IP what becomes of our authors, philopshipers, historians, artists etc.?

They are already having it hard as it is with existing ip protections vs. big tech, big pharma, big record labels, etc.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#43

Post by mlsu »

Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines.

Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to do, what we choose to allow. It's a debate about whether the guys with guns will stop the development of AI, or how much.

It's a bit of clever misdirection to declare the output of AI's "copyrightable" or "not copyrightable." Copyrightable is made up! It's fiction! It is whatever we want it to be!

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#44

Post by ricardo81 »

ricardo81 wrote: post #26
ronsor wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> big tech normalised the taking of other people's content This was normalized by large media companies long before big tech.

Do you have examples? Obviously it's hard to compare scales though.

@TuringNYC and @jachee

What had sprung to mind for me was the wholesale rip off of European IP by the US in its commercial development in the 19th century and China now with the US.

I guess what I'm thinking of is at the individual level, no one cares much for re-appropriating someone elses work. It has been normalised.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#45

Post by wredue »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #31

Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI. One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify). Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely…

It’s not impossible. AI developers can 100% trace node that contribute to a result during the processing of a prompt, therefore they can be attributed.

They’ll never do this, of course, cause they’re riding high on wins of stupid people pushing “you can’t work backward from a result to find the nodes” (which is probably somewhat grounded in reality).

Attribution is absolutely not impossible, they just want to think it’s not possible, because enabling such a thing would show just how egregious the copying actually is.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#46

Post by booleandilemma »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #31

Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI. One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify). Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely…

I'm not sure I like the direction AI is going anyway.

Right now we're on a path towards just a handful of megacorps with AI agents that will make large numbers of white collar workers redundant. Imagine something like closed-source software only much worse.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#47

Post by ricardo81 »

dandellion wrote: post #40
ricardo81 wrote: post #18

It's been dead a while because of big tech. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter - they have no way of effectively managing IP and so you basically see people's stolen content and they monetise it, so TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle. Purely IMO, big tech normalised the taking of other people's content, and it's getting to the point where content creators (as in, ones that are capable of producing…

There was no other outcome possible from the moment we invented a technology that allowed everybody to create infinite copies of digital content at almost zero cost. If tomorrow we discovered a source of infinite free energy, oil and energy companies could try anything they wanted, their current business model would end up obsolete sooner or later.

Can't say I disagree it was inevitable but could have been legislated for, which seems to be years behind the times as always. My main concern is just unique content that is adequately rewarded that isn't siphoned off by large platforms that can viralise said content, or along those lines.

Maybe even if the big tech could pass on some (most) of the proceeds because of the (content share), it'd be far less a thing. Otherwise, 90% of people being made aware of an idea see it somewhere beyond the original source and those secondary sources capitalise because... simply because it's the norm.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#48

Post by tatrajim »

foobiekr wrote: post #39
jprete wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think AGI is desirable?

Humans are too stupid to collectively govern themselves. Just look at the US election cycle that is starting. There is a genuine messianistic cult at work.

All hail the wisdom of the cold circuits. We hear and obey.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#50

Post by ricardo81 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

I can only hope. In the mean time, we have and even worse situation: "AI" models like LLMs are effectively allowed to launder IP. As long as companies like OpenAI are allowed to be ignorant of copyright, they get to monopolize that ignorance. The result is that the rest of us are in an even worse position, because we have to respect DMCA, but can't benefit from it by monopolizing our own IP.

100%, sleight of hand plea of ignorance.

Take xx billion pages of unique human content, do something, pretend that there's no monetary value to that content and monetise it. Farcical.

Post reply on HN