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

141–150 of 309 posts

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

#141

Post by noitpmeder »

suoduandao3 wrote: post #101
gumballindie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just because it's publicly viewable does not mean it's free for reuse. Imagine an author who uploads chapters of their book to their own website. You cant take that and claim it's yours.

Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use it.

Further, what happens if stolen information is posted publicly? (E.g. wholesale copies of full books on html pages?

Just because it's public doesn't mean the viewer has freedom to use it as they see fit.

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

#142

Post by huytersd »

mcguire wrote: post #97

It's amazing how fast the "I want to get paid for my work" attitude disappears when discussing someone else getting paid for their work.

Well it’s kind of silly to say an AI is replicating my style when your style is “I only use purple and yellow and thick black outlines in my work”.

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

#143

Post by kylehotchkiss »

I used the new Instagram "AI" yesterday to "Add a famous duck and his famous mouse friend" to my image which gave me a perfect Donald Duck in the background (I guess it forgot the famous mouse). Surely lawyers just need to work on the replication prompts to demonstrate the model was trained from a copyrighted image and replicates it so accurately to make their case?

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

#144

Post by mlsu »

rangerelf wrote: post #124
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 think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments, because, literally, everything of social utility is a fiction: money, law, "private property", contracts, and so forth. All of them are needed for society to function, but at the same time all of them are convenient fictions for us to build upon.

My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's not copyrightable"). Rather, consider the real thing ("You will pay a licensing fee to use your GPU").

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

#145

Post by adamsilkey »

jtriangle wrote: post #122
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.

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. There, I've stolen your post. Did copyright protect you? No, it did not. Copyright is an idea we came up with that sounded good at the time, and it's come to pass at this point that the original idea was deeply flawed in ways we could never have pred…

> The truth is, intellectual property should be protected by those creating it.

The whole point of government and laws and societal norms is that not everyone has to be deeply involved and specialized in protecting their rights. We default to people doing the right thing and seek out specialists (e.g. lawyers) when we're wronged.

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

#147

Post by visarga »

robertlagrant wrote: post #58
thot_experiment wrote: post #8

No subscription and archive.is is broken on 1.1 but it seems like the conversation is finally moving in a good direction. I'm very very tentatively hopeful that we might see some reduction of IP rights in my lifetime. It's going to be a long hard fight but maybe, just maybe we will see people wake the fuck up and realize how important the building up the fucking commons is to the progress of all humanity.

Is that from the perspective of a reader of novels or a writer of novels? Readers love free stuff.

We have had more content that we can chew for 25 years, all accessible through search. Yes, we love it. But it's nothing new. We don't need AI to have good, free stuff to read.

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

#148

Post by ricardo81 »

visarga wrote: post #128
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…

And if you look at open source it does exactly that. Most AI models are open source/weights. People are giving away some of their best work because they want to cooperate with others to build things. Scientific publications also share knowledge openly. Only private journals are locking up papers, but they are losing ground. At least AI papers are free to read and implement. They share even code, datasets and trained…

It may be a good ethos but you can't simply undermine people's life work for your ethos especially when there's laws protecting their life work.

Put yourself in their shoes. Maybe you use some AI derivative work for your own life's work and then when you've finally accomplished what you want to do, someone else duplicates it, or uses the majority of your work?

What do you expect out of it. If you don't expect to be paid, great - I guess you'll be spending X other hours supporting yourself and possible family.

And if you do, you don't expect the hard work of others to be compensated? Rhetorical question.

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

#149

Post by Ukv »

mschuster91 wrote: post #92
Ukv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a big screen experience Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely new"? Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry barrier…

> Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with smaller screens: would you be satisfied with content that is stuck in "2020-2030 forever" and can never produce anything "entirely new"? I fear the enshittification of movies - similar to, say, the situation in video games or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bull…

> or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end)

So, if I'm understanding, you believe you wouldn't be satisfied with the movies, but wouldn't have a choice because of a silent agreement (as with residential ISPs) leaving customers with no good options. Is lowering barriers to competition not one of the ways that such oligopolies are fought?

To me this seems far more of a risk in our current environment where the vast majority of high-production-value movies come from a small handful of companies that have the budget to make them (and give us plenty of safe low-risk sequels).

> Oh even now even utter novices and two-three person teams can produce hours of high quality content, youtube is enough proof of that

There are reasons why working-class people are vastly under-represented in arts - the time and resources required to create "hours of high quality video content" is a hefty investment even for Youtube videos, not to mention a feature film that people will want to watch.

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

#150

Post by johnnyanmac »

mlsu wrote: post #144
rangerelf wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments, because, literally, everything of social utility is a fiction: money, law, "private property", contracts, and so forth. All of them are needed for society to function, but at the same time all of them are convenient fictions for us to build upon.

My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's not copyrightable"). Rather, consider the real thing ("You will pay a licensing fee to use your GPU").

I'm still confused. Sure, a GPU is a real, physical thing. But licenses and fees are no more or less fiction than copyright. A license says "I have permission from the company makers to use this product", similar to how copyright is "you must get permission from me to use my product".

But for the sake of this discussion: I don't think anyone can assume those permissions when using a tool to generate the base image. Ironically enough, it may make more sense to have artists for concepting, copyrighting the character or world so you obtain those permissions, and then using AI to ramp up production. That's an inversion of what's happening for early AI usage.

The main question is how much concepting is needed to copyright a character? Making a few sketches in private? Releasing a full work first with no AI on what you want to copyright?

Post reply on HN