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

131–140 of 309 posts

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

#131

Post by ricardo81 »

distortedsignal wrote: post #100
ricardo81 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one That just seems like a sociopathic argument to circumvent perfectly clear laws intended to protect people who expend energy into offering new ideas and also trying to diminish what is already delineated as right and wrong. In the blatant sense. I'm not sure how your gun analogy funnels along to fair use. As wit…

The "gun analogy" is the parent saying the the government (who is supposed to be the only entity able to use force) is supposed to protect IP. You're saying the same thing. You shouldn't say anything to anyone who doesn't respect copyright laws - or, rather, you shouldn't have to. Your tax dollars, and the entity that you authorize to be the one to use force where you live, should be able to say whatever you, as the…

What parent? The comment I'm replying to has no parent and the article has no mention of a gun

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

#132

Post by teddyh »

ImPleadThe5th wrote: post #42
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…

It’s not that cut-and-dry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright>

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...>

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

#133

Post by artninja1988 »

noitpmeder wrote: post #114
artninja1988 wrote: post #90

> 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…

Remove copywriter protections and small time authors have the potential to earn EVEN LESS. Why write books or any creative text based content when the second it's available it will be hoovered into the next AI training cycle and can be reproduced in part or in whole by users who almost definitely do not know who you are in the first place.

Is that even the case? Who would read a small time writers fiction book through chatgpt? Most of the use cases I've seen for chatgpt, e.g. Translation, conversation, brainstorming, reformulation, summarization are wholly different from the dataset of books. I would say that the art generators have a stronger claim of competing with their work than llms

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

#134

Post by nyc_data_geek1 »

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…

Money is no more real than copyright.

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

#135

Post by hadlock »

booleandilemma wrote: post #46
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.

In the last six months model size has come way down and quality has gone way up through different training styles/methods. There is an incentive to release separate models capable of running on 8/16/32gb ram. On my laptop I have something like six free/open source models installed. LLMs are getting so easy to make that people are doing this in their spare time as a hobby. This is starting to feel like a small stepping stone towards AGI but only time will tell.

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

#136

Post by chmod600 »

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…

Are there other examples where the law crushed fundamental technological shifts?

(Not just delayed briefly by starving investment or something.)

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

#137

Post by visarga »

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…

> 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.

Both will win. As corporations will make more and more advanced models, training data generated by their models will uplift open models. They only lag a few months. We already can shrink most of chatGPT's abilities in a 7B model. All open models trained after 2022 are benefiting from their big brothers. It's too easy to exfiltrate skills from proprietary models.

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

#138

Post by kajecounterhack »

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…

As many other comments mention, copyright is as real as contract law or money.

A more correct statement with the same thrust would be "copyright is not _natural_ -- it's an artificial, bolt-on construct."

And yet lots of artificial constructs are useful for incentivizing / de-incentivizing massed behavior in a way that is maximally beneficial to all. For sure, getting it right is difficult but let's not write off all artificial constructs as worthless or impossible to get right (especially when you just have to get it right _enough_).

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

#139

Post by noitpmeder »

artninja1988 wrote: post #133
noitpmeder wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove copywriter protections and small time authors have the potential to earn EVEN LESS. Why write books or any creative text based content when the second it's available it will be hoovered into the next AI training cycle and can be reproduced in part or in whole by users who almost definitely do not know who you are in the first place.

Is that even the case? Who would read a small time writers fiction book through chatgpt? Most of the use cases I've seen for chatgpt, e.g. Translation, conversation, brainstorming, reformulation, summarization are wholly different from the dataset of books. I would say that the art generators have a stronger claim of competing with their work than llms

OpenAI/other is earning money (by selling subscriptions, ...) with a product that has been trained on and utilizes the protected work to produce their results.

Personally I think the only way forward is for these AI companies to curate their dataset to only material that is legal for use. E.g. only GitHub repos with licenses stating such. Just because there is not a license doesn't mean it's free to hoover.

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

#140

Post by visarga »

gumballindie wrote: post #73
foobiekr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see how software people feel when it becomes routine to AI wash projects to de-license them.

Software people here, we dont want ai people to steal our open source code, hide it behind closed models, and sell it without attribution or other terms respected. Many in the software world are in awe how much theft ai people do.

Open generative models are to open source what open source is to closed source - an even deeper level of openness, customisability and accessibility. Like open source they empower their users, are private and easy to adapt. Most of the time you just need to prompt, other times you apply a fine-tuning tool, which is also open source.

I really don't understand open source people combating generative AI. I've never seen this ethos since the javascript framework wars. Take a look at llama.cpp, ollama and vllm repos and their friends. They got such a sustained rate of development and participation.

Post reply on HN