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

171–180 of 309 posts

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

#171

Post by visarga »

ricardo81 wrote: post #148
visarga wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Use AI to build things for yourself. You get the benefit in those things, it doesn't matter if anyone else copies, as long as you're not selling content.

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

#172

Post by BobaFloutist »

teddyh wrote: post #127
chefandy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that our society has no other viable widespread mechanism to support the many millions of people who do intellectual work, and lots of intellectual work is really important for our society-- far more important than would make sense to relegate to hobbyists and volunteers. And this is coming from someone who's contributed well over 10k coding hours to FOSS software.

> The problem is that our society has no other viable widespread mechanism to support Except, of course, UBI.

We don't have that. Maybe we should, but we don't.

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

#173

Post by kiba »

gumballindie wrote: post #63
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.

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.

It is well understood that laws are man made construct enforced at the point of violence?

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

ricardo81 wrote: post #167

Perhaps another angle is that the incoming and young workforce find it extremely convenient to take everyone else's work and make it their own. It is nature after all, to spend the least amount of energy to attain a goal. It would be convenient to accept it as par for the course. The problem seems to be is that copyright laws are basically ignored nowadays.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by z7 »

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.

Maybe, but you can also say that about money or about being married. Social fictions work as collective agreements on what is seen as useful for society. One can obviously critique their utility, but pointing out the ficitonal component isn't in itself a criticism.

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

#176

Post by JumpCrisscross »

silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

> when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them

It's been over a decade since an individual was prosecuted for digital piracy [1]. Longer since anyone was threatened with jail time.

When it was new, both individuals and companies were prosecuted. The tides shifted and law enforcement responded. This isn't a story of different standards, but one of evolving ones.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum

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

#177

Post by dageshi »

silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

We're not exactly tearing everything apart to combat piracy nowadays even though piracy still exists, so I'm not sure exactly what it reveals other than attitudes change?

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

#178

Post by pylua »

silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

Are they training it on music from top artists or their lyrics? Maybe they haven’t poked the wrong bear yet.

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

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").

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by sam0x17 »

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.

Sure, you can make a slippery slope argument, but there is something substantially more "fictional" / artificial / unnatural about copyright/IP than currencies and other social constructs you are equivocating with.

Storytelling is as old as language itself and might even be older than our particular species, and is basically copyright infringement. The same goes for tool-making, which is thought to be one of the sparks that gave rise to our species' vast intelligence. That's how imaginary copyright and IP in general is, let's take the thing we've been doing since literally the dawn of time, copying and sharing information for free and building upon and improving it, and portray this practice as "unnatural" and "unlicensed" and in fact let's set up a restrictive framework under which most of the technological and cultural achievements in human history and before would have been impossible or severely hampered. It reeks of artificiality, way more than money and other things do.

It was created by corporations to make it easier for them to form monopolies around unchallenged control over a particular intellectual property or idea, and now that it is becoming inconvenient for them with the advent of AI, they will probably get rid of it or re-invent it in some way that even further benefits them.

It also matters very little what we do because in the end we will be out-competed by other countries like China that don't draw these artificial intellectual lines that hamper progress.

Post reply on HN