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

81–90 of 309 posts

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

#81

Post by ricardo81 »

pjmorris wrote: post #57
ricardo81 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Everything is free now That's what they say Everything I ever done Gonna give it away Someone hit the big score They figured it out That we're gonna do it anyway Even if it doesn't pay" - 'Everything is Free', Gillian Welch, 2001

Ah

"No one's gonna notice if you're never right or wrong

And if you and your next neighbour, yeah, ya don't quite get along

No one's gonna notice if you're singing anyway

Those not coming in for free will learn they gotta pay"

Ian Brown, 2004.

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

#82

Post by throwboatyface »

k__ wrote: post #65
throwboatyface wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop signs are made up too. See how far you get driving through all of them without stopping.

But they have a point. Copyright law is already different from country to country.

Some countries have roundabouts. Some countries let you make a right turn on a red light. Traffic law isn't any more universal than copyright law. All law is made up but that doesn't make it less real.

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

#83

Post by michael_nielsen »

k__ wrote: post #65
throwboatyface wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop signs are made up too. See how far you get driving through all of them without stopping.

But they have a point. Copyright law is already different from country to country.

So are the rules of the road.

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

#84

Post by splitstud »

thot_experiment wrote: post #53
__loam wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rich to see people talk about the commons like AI models aren't a massive tragedy of the commons.

Please explain to me how baking all the art into a big tensor and then giving it away to everyone for free to run on any half decent GPU from the past 10 years is somehow anti-commons. Rent-seeking by controlling AI models is anti-commons, the models themselves are not, neither is training them. Don't delude yourself into thinking that Miyazaki didn't study Moebius didn't study Mucha. Even if you got your way and all…

[dead]

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

#85

Post by chefandy »

falcolas wrote: post #29
gustavus wrote: post #10

Intellectual property isn't.

Yup. It accounts for some 41% of the US' GDP, and a minimum of 47 million jobs. It's also growing at a fairly fast rate. That's too much money for anybody in charge to let die. They're much more likely to nuke AI.

> minimum of 47 million jobs

What would you propose the US workforce did with some 47 million knowledge workers with suddenly useless skills if you removed the only widespread economic mechanism our society has to support them?

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

#86

Post by stefan_ »

mlsu wrote: post #43

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…

This is funny, the moment the absence of IP can benefit large companies it's just a fiction, a made up concept, not too serious at all.

Of course you go onto the OpenAI corporate pitch page and it will proudly say "respects your IP by not training from it!", that's not the part we are looking to get rid of apparently? That's very real?

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

#87

Post by echelon »

tilwidnk wrote: post #59
mlsu wrote: post #43

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…

> Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years life experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it protects people who create, from assholes and AI.

Serfdom used to be a real thing.

Dowry payments used to be a real thing.

Butter churning used to be a real thing.

Copyright law is, and will be, mutable.

In just about a year, kids will be making entire Pixar movies from home. (The content will probably be Skibidi toilet related, but of Pixar scale and scope.)

How that reconciles with copyright, you've got me. It doesn't. It's a domain mismatch. It's completely outmoded by what's coming.

And the music industry is equally toast. I can already make an excellent banger song about superhero rodents in under 30 seconds.

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

#88

Post by jprete »

mlsu wrote: post #43

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…

Wait, what? Money is real? I thought it was just a collectively-imagined pile of IOUs to keep track of how many favors someone is owed.

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

#89

Post by efsavage »

mlsu wrote: post #43

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…

In the sense of Sapiens†, yes, copyright is a fiction, but so is money, or any law or contract or agreement. In as much as it affects people's lives and societies and economies it is "real". The question of the article isn't about realness, it's whether it can evolve or survive this latest shift.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Hu...

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

#90

Post by artninja1988 »

> Bellos, a comparative-literature professor at Princeton, and Montagu, an intellectual-property lawyer, find this kind of rent-seeking objectionable. They complain that corporate copyright owners “strut the world stage as the new barons of the twenty-first century,” and they call copyright “the biggest money machine the world has seen.” They point out that, at a time when corporate ownership of copyrights has boomed, the income of authors, apart from a few superstars, has been falling. They think that I.P. law is not a set of rules protecting individual rights so much as a regulatory instrument for business.

Couldn't agree more

Post reply on HN