Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

291–300 of 309 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.

Right, but if I look at your sculpture and get ideas on how to make a better sculpture, then make an entirely different sculpture using yours as inspiration, and you get upset that I'm 'copying your style' we generally don't give you much sympathy.

Sure, I was commenting on the "public" aspect, not the "fair use" debate.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.

Right, but if I look at your sculpture and get ideas on how to make a better sculpture, then make an entirely different sculpture using yours as inspiration, and you get upset that I'm 'copying your style' we generally don't give you much sympathy.

Right but you are not a 3D scanner are you?

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I think it's quite telling that sooner or later, every discussion about "AI" and copyright ends up equating people to statistical models controlled by predatory megacorporations. My connectome, in the eyes of the law, has a special legal status which is not shared by in…

You're invoking sorcery. Go check out open source AI. AnimateDiff, RVC, and the whole wealth of LLM models.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spar…

> 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. I think there's probably some modern bias in this perspective, about how "natural"/"real" money is. Early human populations certainly didn't have the same concepts of currency, land ownership, etc. that…

Sure, but imagine if someone had patented the wheel and decided not to license it to anyone...

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

As an NLP researcher, I've come across no convincing research indicating LLMs are "the possible digital twin of human intelligence." Claims certainly get made, but they are subsequently shot down by future research. This has happened for discussions of emergence [1], reasoning [2], and other human attributes people have ascribed to LLMs. [1]: https://neurips.cc/virtual/2023/poster/72117 [2]: https://m-cacm.acm.org/bl…

I think you’re discussing the logical extension of our current AI efforts, and I’m discussing the fully realized science fiction reality that could take decades to perfect or that would be driven by breakthroughs beyond the forecast of existing systems.

That’s the difference between seeing it as a technology vs a larger directional shift in human development. Put more directly we have been experiencing the age of miniaturization, and now we are entering the age of digital intelligences.

Very often early technology looks toy-like and lacks substantive real world application (despite the hype). It’s only later that deliver substantive applications and real-world change. This generation of AI is following the Gartner hype cycle perfectly thus far:

https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/what-s-new-in-artificial...

That said Gartner tends to be part of the hype cycle these days, but the pattern of new technology holds true.

So in short I would expect anything like a digital twin to emerge from post trough applications not the current generation, and I don't mean to imply that the current technology will create such a system but just that science fiction and futurists generally forecast or even predict this technology will generate a digital twin (in the form of an AGI) from this civilization-level line of technology exploration.

All that said, I don’t think many of us technologists were thinking we would be anywhere near this level of AI technology in 2018. In five or six years we have gone what people thought would take 10-20. So, as always, linear extension predictive and mental models of technology advancement once again fails to predict the true course of technology progress, which seems to be much more dynamic than people generally consider when talking about the future.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if I look at your sculpture and get ideas on how to make a better sculpture, then make an entirely different sculpture using yours as inspiration, and you get upset that I'm 'copying your style' we generally don't give you much sympathy.

Right but you are not a 3D scanner are you?

And if I'm not, then neither is an Ai?..

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? Let me spell it out for you.

Artificial scarcity is bad. I am not comfortable denying people things that cost nothing to reproduce. This is a problem.

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

#298
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You equivocated them.

I did not. You and GP are missing the point. I'm trying to make you understand how much of art is stealing from others, that you're incorrect about how art works at a basic level. Art is mostly drawing upon the commons and your understanding of artist rights is based on a fiction created by corporations and wealthy rent seekers seeking to retain power in our economic system.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pharmaceutical industry continues as a giant, blood sucking, vampire squid because of IP. Let's be honest here. In order to get that way, they needed to stomp out and eradicate every trace of "evidence" that natural medicine was efficacious, because herbs, botanicals, and other natural substances can't be patented, can't be synthesized in factories, and can't be exploited for profit at megascale. If word ever l…

I can buy valerian root tea at multinational grocery store. The problem with supplements isn't that they're disenfranchised, and it's not even that they strictly don't work. It's that the huge businesses that make tons of money off of them have so aggressively resisted regulation based on effectiveness, or even contents, that you can't count on what you're buying not poisoning you, let alone helping. And I'd love to…

>And I'd love to see a natural replacement for insulin that doesn't kill people, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

No sugar, no alcohol, low carbohydrate diets are the answer to the diabetes epidemic. If you want to regulate something, start with the corporations marketing processed, poisoned garbage to people as "food" and "beverages".

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stud…

> I am working in making, Rust specifically, 100% code generated. Generating code is trivial. Generating code that works is not. I suspect you are at around 10-15% of reaching that. All models out there are probably at 2-3% as they barely equal a google prompt in reliability.

Generating code that works, 100% percent computer-generated, i have already done that. I created a notification service for HN [1]. In the repo i have the ChatGPT conversation.

I don't put it to work for the moment, cause i am trying to create a TUI for HN, or a TUI forum more generally, like HN, maybe even backed by version control like Pijul instead of a database. 100% computer generated obviously, that goes without saying.

My biggest problem so far, is that GPT doesn't write idiomatic Rust. The code it generates is very C or Pythonic, and i am trying to figure out a way to guide it, to write beautiful code, instead of just correct code. When the machine generates just correct code, it doesn't cut it for me, is what i am saying. I am reading "Command Line Rust" to get a sense of idiomatic Rust, and then i have to study github projects as well to really figure out how beautiful idiomatic Rust code really is structured and written. Like, i know what idiomatic Rust is, just not that well at the moment.

The tool i want to create, to use GPT instead of Copilot, is something like Aider [1] but not in Python and maybe a TUI.

https://github.com/paul-gauthier/aider [1] https://github.com/pramatias/hnotify

Post reply on HN