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

101–110 of 309 posts

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

#101

Post by suoduandao3 »

gumballindie wrote: post #77
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…

So essentially ai is profitable only if it resells stolen property. Almost as if it’s not intelligent and it only procedurally generates output. The more the better.

How is it 'stolen' if it was part of a public dataset? Is the argument that OpenAI was scraping data that should have been behind a paywall?

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

#102

Post by mplewis »

echelon wrote: post #87
tilwidnk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 outmo…

None of what you described is quality content that anyone actually wants to watch.

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

#103

Post by ToucanLoucan »

andrewmutz wrote: post #91
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…

I agree but I would word it a bit differently: Copyright isn't some fixed, timeless thing. It has been continuously modified to suit the times and to adapt to technological change. Rather than try to reason about how existing copyright law applies to AI models, we should be focused on changing copyright law to work well in a world with AI. We can balance the incentives of content creators with the incentives of the u…

> It has been continuously modified to suit the times and to adapt to technological change.

And to suit the whims of sufficiently large and influential media conglomerates.

Yes, you, as an indie creator, have the exact same intellectual property rights as Disney. But if Disney steals something you made, who's going to win that fight?

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

#104

Post by mplewis »

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…

We all know that an artist studying the masters to make something original isn't the same as an autocomplete API picking the color of the next pixel. Come on, man.

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

#105

Post by mindcandy »

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 is no mechanism for attribution.

What if there was?

What if I hand-painted an image (without AI) and God himself came down from heaven and explained to the world that my painting was derived 10% from my observations of the collected works of Lisa Frank, 3% from looking at Davinci paintings, and 87% a long tail of various sources. And then I sell my painting for $100.

OK. Now what?

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

#106

Post by bobthecowboy »

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…

The jist of what you're saying is in the Free Culture movement/philosophy, I think, and it resonates with me as someone who does not like what AI has done with copyrighted works but also dislikes copyright.

The "rent-seekers" is the problem. We collectively inherit and own our shared culture, but large corporations have always wanted to sell it back to us. AI companies are arguing they should have no limitations on their usage of the culture, but that the same shouldn't apply to them. Selling tickets to the commons is anti-commons.

Perhaps if these companies were themselves arguing for the end of copyright and IP for everyone, the conversation would be different.

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

#107

Post by resolutebat »

mplewis wrote: post #102
echelon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outmo…

None of what you described is quality content that anyone actually wants to watch.

The YouTube watch history of any 13-year-old provides a handy counterexample to your assertion.

Slightly less flippantly, the days when the nation gathered around their TVs to all watch "Leave It To Beaver" at 8pm are long gone, the media landscape has been fragmenting for decades and this is just the next step. My kids don't watch TV shows, they follow YouTubers.

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

#108

Post by gooob »

jerf wrote: post #54
AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really interesting take, but I don't completely buy it. Traditionally technologies like these become more accessible with time. Take the youtube example, this is actually a really good counterpoint as if you can create videos with an AI you created, nobody has any way of figuring out that you trained it on so-and-so's IP. It's completely black box which is the direction things are probably going to go IMO.…

One of the big factors is whether or not AI can stay in the hands of the public or if it recedes into levels of hardware that only companies can own. If the latter, then the control will win. Keeping AI performance workable on personal-level hardware is going to be a big deal. Open source work on keeping performance at that level may be long-term more important that this or that feature. Watch out for calls for AI et…

everyone already has computers that can "run AI". would be pretty ridiculous if some law was passed and everyone's computers were confiscated. that would be like a lobotomization of society. a very stupid and short-sited move i think.

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

#109

Post by arrosenberg »

echelon wrote: post #95
gumballindie wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one that loves a blunt and honest comment? Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own. That’s fine. What they want is to legally steal from the average joe.

Are you stealing from your lord, serf? Perhaps you should be churning the butter, not thinking for yourself. (I kid, I kid!) It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a taste. I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust…

> It's hard to believe we've come this far, and it's only going to keep climbing in capability.

Or we hit the top of the sigmoid curve and just have fancy autocomplete.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

gumballindie wrote: post #77
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…

So essentially ai is profitable only if it resells stolen property. Almost as if it’s not intelligent and it only procedurally generates output. The more the better.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN