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

201–210 of 309 posts

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

#201

Post by gumballindie »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #120
arrosenberg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't understand why the autocomplete meme is so compelling to people. How is drawing a picture, which modern AI systems are already capable of, "autocomplete"?

AI systems are not “drawing a picture”. They procedurally generate output given vast amounts of input, much of which has been stolen. Without it there would be no credible output. I dont understand why are ai cultists hell bent on theft.

Llama, ollama, etc are not the issue here. Nor is ai. The issue is theft for training.

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

#202

Post by EdwardDiego »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189
ricardo81 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/t…

And plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany where an entire industry stalks public torrents looking for German IPs.

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

#203

Post by ricardo81 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #198
ricardo81 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today. Some lawsuits don't change that fact.

> individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about?

You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.

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

#204

Post by mindcandy »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #169
mindcandy wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good! Alternatively, if I created a large body of works that were 90% Lisa Frank and brought it to a large market distribution, making significant revenue, then she could sue me for damaging her market and her brand. Which she has done to others in the past and rightly won. Go Lisa Frank! But, if I used an AI tool in the process of making an image that came out 10% Lisa Frank, she wouldn't have a strong case aga…

Do you think it's reasonable for artists to want a way to forbid major AI corporations from training on their work? Because some people will stop producing/stop making available their work if they don't get access to a different way of doing so. Much like how some artists are uncomfortable with making high-quality scans of their work available online, because it becomes prohibitively difficult to prevent people from…

I get that the concept is upsetting. And, I'm not going to tell people to not be upset or not state their will. Ex: DeviantArt has instated an opt-in checkbox for "It's OK to train on my art" and I think that's great.

But, everything I've heard and learned about how AI works leads me to the conclusion that such a move is almost entirely symbolic. Counter to what our egos would like to believe, the vast majority of the training images and the vast majority of the learning value for AI comes from random, crappy photographs of various things. Without a million photos of dogs and trees, the AI can't make a stylized dog distinguishable from a stylized tree. And, it's turning out that, from that base of crappy photographs, it doesn't take many high-aesthetic images to make a high-aesthetic AI.

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

#205

Post by thot_experiment »

mplewis wrote: post #104
thot_experiment wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not those things are equivalent isn't relevant to any part of my point.

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

#206

Post by robertlagrant »

thot_experiment wrote: post #191
robertlagrant wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean novel writing would only be for those who are already independently wealthy? How would that actually work?

I'm not claiming to have worked out how to make this all function. I'm just pointing out that the cost of duplicating a novel approaches zero and the assumption that the way we're assigning value is the only one that works leads to a world where we must deny people things they could have in order to preserve their value. This does not seem morally correct to me. I do not need to have a solution in order to identify a…

> I do not need to have a solution in order to identify a problem

I'm the only one who's identified a problem. You haven't. Production costs aren't the only type of cost.

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

#207

Post by __loam »

AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #27
__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.

Can you expand on that?

These models will discourage creative work. They exist at the expense of the people who made them possible.

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

#208

Post by __loam »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #38
__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.

I assume you're referring to copyright. It could be argued copyright is a tragedy of the commons, the individual benefits at the expense of everyone else. Obviously it is intended that the wider impact of incentivising innovation will be beneficial to everyone, but that is not a sure thing, it is a compromise, a balancing act and that applies to AI too. The Luddites did lose their jobs after all.

Listening to people bash the luddites without understanding the actual history of the luddites is getting exhausting.

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

#209

Post by carlosjobim »

rngname22 wrote: post #115
kopecs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not believe that societal constructs are real? What makes (fiat) money a real resource and copyright an imaginary one? What about this logic: Debt is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting contract law is not like subverting the laws of physics. Simply don't pay your bills! What happens when you subvert contract law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your ima…

Really confused to see your comment flagged. The parent comment basically says "copyright is not a physical good or law, therefore we may disregard it". As if the same couldn't be said for any verbal agreement, sexual consent, property rights, whatever. They ought to be arguing why this _particular_ verbal agreement/social contract is not worth enforcing or practicing, rather than dismissing the entire category.

It can and should be said about every fiction, as a healthy reminder to yourself. Fiat money, government and property rights are complete abstractions, completely abused and tarnished beyond all limits. A verbal agreement is on a much closer level to reality. Even people who have never heard of money or owned property will take a man up on his word. As for sexual consent it is not something abstract at all. It's not words. It is the will of a person and something that can never be misunderstood.

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

#210

Post by carlosjobim »

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.

"Society" is the most abstract illusion of them all. It doesn't exist and has never existed anywhere, it has always been a complete fiction and pretend. So, maintaining a bunch of fictions in order to maintain another fiction becomes circular reasoning.
Post reply on HN