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

241–250 of 309 posts

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

#241

Post by echelon »

gumballindie wrote: post #201
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's theft, then your brain belongs to Disney and you need to start forking over your salary. Your connectome is littered with their platitudes.

This is the same argument the horse people had about the cars taking over the streets. In the end, progress will win.

Do we really want people spending hours and hours practicing and performing legacy acts of creation, with some people never able to summon the opportunity cost to even begin? For people to endlessly labor over creating a small amount of unrepeatable output?

Or do we want a world where everybody on the planet is able to turn their thoughts into something visible and tangible quickly? For society as a whole to have orders of magnitude bigger and better works?

This is a horse to car moment, but for thought itself.

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

#242

Post by gumballindie »

djohnston wrote: post #223
gumballindie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the proposal of sociopathic thieves is that we turn into china and steal people’s property? What an odd take.

It’s a hard world and we need to play to win.

Yeah by stealing things from our own people? Thats a dumb way to win.

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

#243

Post by mcmoor »

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.

I see the exact hypocrisy from the opposite side too. Praising pirating while treating AI as crime against humanity.

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

#244

Post by mcmoor »

andrewmutz wrote: post #91
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 agree but I would word it a bit differently: Copyright isn't some fixed, timeless thing. It has been continuously modified to suit the times and to adapt to technological change. Rather than try to reason about how existing copyright law applies to AI models, we should be focused on changing copyright law to work well in a world with AI. We can balance the incentives of content creators with the incentives of the u…

I'm pessimistic precisely because we haven't done it anytime in the past, DMCA and copyright is notoriously bad for all sides.

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

#245

Post by ndriscoll »

vdaea wrote: post #56
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.

As a software person that feels great.

I for one am looking forward to LLM-based super-decompilers that can recognize assembly patterns and understand what the high level intent was. Suddenly there would be a wealth of effectively open-source code (with the hope that it wouldn't change much about SaSS-ifying things since that's mostly already done where the market will bear it).

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

#246

Post by jug »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #236
pylua wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

Holy crap, I managed it now in POE and ChatGPT 3.5. It halts output and can't continue even if requested as JSON for a project etc

But look at this...

https://poe.com/s/Y73se7ueRrQy9xHRPuoh

I swear the chaps at OpenAI have it all as exact copies. Articles and whatnot. Why wouldn't they if they have the lyrics precisely cloned.

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

#247

Post by johnnyanmac »

chmod600 wrote: post #136
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.)

Crypto is the most recent one.

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

#248

Post by johnnyanmac »

djohnston wrote: post #223
gumballindie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the proposal of sociopathic thieves is that we turn into china and steal people’s property? What an odd take.

It’s a hard world and we need to play to win.

Win what? This is about making pretty pictures or words, not a resource war. You think Chinese Hollywood will suddenly pop up and topple the US's?

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

#249

Post by cloverich »

foobiekr wrote: post #36
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.

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

In general software developers are already highly (or completely) dependent on permissively licensed open source software; this would at its worst produce more of it no?

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

#250

Post by johnnyanmac »

mindcandy wrote: post #204
BobaFloutist wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Quality aside, art still has copyright for these exact reasons (and photographs are no different, long settled case law). So you can't just say "well no one cares about this blurry dog photo". Courts need more precise language than "care".

If it needs millions of photos of dogs and trees you

1. Take them you self

2. Pay someone with a db of dog and tree photos soem agreed upon amount (Aka someone did the work for you already and you value their work)

3. You scrape only on photos you are sure are CC0 or any other kind of permissive license. I'm sure you can find a few million dog photos this way.

But clearly they value #2 without payment so lawsuits were inevitable. Maybe because #3 took too much time and they decide #2 is worth the legal fees to be first to the race (something else I'd want fixed, but that's another rabbit hole).

Post reply on HN