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

231–240 of 309 posts

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

#231

Post by emporas »

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…

The parent makes the mistake, to assume an adversarial relationship between an mp3 download from a torrent and the musician. Or an adversarial relationship between training an A.I. statistical engine to a painter and reproducing the style.

That's not correct. We are now increasing the capabilities of everyone creative, to achieve much more, almost free and instantly. The painter now, will have a 100 million film studio on his fingertips to create movies. The musician will be able make a high quality album, just from his snoring.

One usual misconception is that talent is not important anymore. That's certainly not true. Talent is not going anywhere. People not so talented can get some results which are ok or good enough, but talented people can create magnificent art, without even trying.

Also "tab completing Rust code 70% of the time" is breadcrumbs. I am working in making, Rust specifically, 100% code generated.

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

#232

Post by jwells89 »

bobthecowboy wrote: post #106
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…

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 t…

Right, I think we’d be having a very different conversation if products of AI could not be sold (what’s taken for free must be given for free and free for others to use as they see fit). Companies will fight this tooth and nail though because that flushes any prospective profit produced by firing humans down the drain.

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

#233

Post by ricardo81 »

IcyWindows wrote: post #226
ricardo81 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Technology had made people's jobs obsolete for ages.

But there is differences between technological evolution and wholesale taking of other people's intellectual property.

You can go to Watt's steam engine or some such. I doubt he'd argue that his engine had intellectual property on the manual labour people did since time immemorial. But yet it did make their jobs obsolete.

Maybe some of them died while his patents were still in play. All the same, his invention, his idea, plays by the rules.

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

kopecs wrote: post #68
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by distortedsignal »

ricardo81 wrote: post #131
distortedsignal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, I meant the comment you replied to.

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

#236

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

pylua wrote: post #178
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.

Did some limited testing(chatgpt 3.5).

If you ask it to complete text and give it the first line, it will sometimes continue the lyrics. Seems to work best for particularly famous stretches of lyrics, like Lose Yourself by Eminem, Bohemian Rhapsody or Hurt.

When I told it to complete the text "Obie Trice, real name no gimmicks", it said I'm sorry I can't reproduce the lyrics to Without Me by Eminem. And offered to tell me more about Obie Trice.

When I just asked it to reproduce the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody, it once again refused and offered to analyse the lyrics.

Seems like there's clearly song lyrics in the training data, and that they've at least made attempts to prevent it from regurgitating them.

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

#237

Post by happytiger »

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.

Rules for thee and not for me? Perhaps V, perhaps.

I want to gently reframe the debate, for while I agree with the hypocrisy it rather misses a very key point.

Intellectual law, as bedrock principle, explicitly doesn’t recognize nonhuman creators. So at the heart of the issue isn’t changing copyright laws or the death of IP, but what to do with non-human creativity? This is an interesting issue now, but most of the debates and options being debated thus far won’t survive an AGI let alone a world full of advanced AGIs.

But it’s a critical distinction between “so now it doesn’t matter when it was theft before,” and “what do we do with non-human intelligence when our entire system of creativity protection is build around humans and non-humans now exist?”

It’s a paradigm shift that gets somewhat denied by the hypocrisy argument. Most people look at AI as “technology” we have developed, but if any science fiction writers are right it’s actually a bona fide digital intelligence that’s getting developed here — essentially the possible digital twin of human intelligence — and that’s a whole different set of considerations.

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

#238

Post by mwhitfield »

reb wrote: post #168
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.

This is the right take — whatever your position on the future of this technology or its costs and benefits for humanity, the hypocrisy mentioned here shouldn't go unacknowledged.

It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.

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

#239

Post by leotravis10 »

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.

This is the absolute correct take, especially with the uncertainty and legal actions (copyright infringment lawsuits) against AI right now.

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

#240

Post by robertlagrant »

naet wrote: post #182
robertlagrant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It can end up being bad for both readers and writers in the long term. If writers aren't able to find profit in writing then there will be less people spending the time and effort to produce good writing, which in turn means less quality material for readers to read (and, as an aside, less quality material for an AI to train on in the future). We could arguably reach some type of feedback loop where less quality writ…

> free stuff often isn't sustainable under our current economic system

I disagree - some people live their whole lives on benefits or similar entitlements. That's an incredible economic achievement, as well as being a brilliant show of hard work by the net contributors.

Post reply on HN