Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

warandpeas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#171

Post by [deleted] »

relaxing wrote: post #168
throwaway55533 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but the author referred specifically to "Creators", which usually means the minority of users who post things other than text. If you read more of the author's post: > We are a webcomic duo that has been creating original comics since 2011 and sharing them on various platforms on the web > Any business model that does not acknowledge this and does not seek proper compensation for artists is not of interest to us.…

I think you’re connecting two separate facts that need not necessarily be linked. Regardless, users posting only life update-style text posts are also uncompensated for their contributions to the network (and their works too are feeding AI.)

[deleted]

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#172

Post by bronco21016 »

unsui wrote: post #87
bronco21016 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the missing piece is the generative AI being tied to a physical embodiment. My point is, we need the physical machine but we also need to work on this generative AI aspect to manipulate the machine. Unfortunately, making pictures and writing text seems to be the lowest hanging fruit of the Transformer AI era since we have significant datasets already available. Several companies are working on creating datase…

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that you're taking the wrong lesson from the above quote. It's not an instruction manual on what parts of the human experience are not yet fully captured by AI. It's a condemnation on the entire purpose of AI as actualized in our economy, re: it's presumed lofty sci-fi-inspired aspirations (giving humans more creative liberty and freedom) versus how it's actually being opera…

So if we can’t have one without the other we should throw the whole thing out?

It is a rather bleak outlook for humanity when you consider a future where we don’t do the chores or creative endeavors.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#173

Post by throwaway55533 »

relaxing wrote: post #168
throwaway55533 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but the author referred specifically to "Creators", which usually means the minority of users who post things other than text. If you read more of the author's post: > We are a webcomic duo that has been creating original comics since 2011 and sharing them on various platforms on the web > Any business model that does not acknowledge this and does not seek proper compensation for artists is not of interest to us.…

I think you’re connecting two separate facts that need not necessarily be linked. Regardless, users posting only life update-style text posts are also uncompensated for their contributions to the network (and their works too are feeding AI.)

Sure, maybe my definition was imprecise. Good catch.

But my point remains. I don't feel like I should be compensated for my HN posts. My great aunt doesn't expect compensation for posting her cat pictures. To be honest, I don't care about consuming artists' content. I'm sure it's great. But I go to the local art museum for that. When I go on social media, it's to hear from my great aunt.

And if YC wants to train a model that will eventually replace me, sure. I don't want to be paid for it. The whole thing is inevitable. You can't stop technology, only delay.

People just want to enjoy using computers (in the time humans have left).

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#174

Post by lolinder »

caconym_ wrote: post #75
throwawaysleep wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

> Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. With the possible exception of Wikipedia illustrations, I wasn't aware we had a meaningful shortage of any of those things. On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc…

> On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc.) already available than I could ever hope to get through in my lifetime.

As someone who has a very specific taste in video games, I beg to differ. If you happen to exist in the space targeted by AAA or if you don't have strong preferences for what you get out of an indie game the status quo is fine, but it's been a while since I've found a game I hadn't played before that scratches the itch.

Automation allows what's popular to become extremely cheap and what's niche to become possible.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#175

Post by lolinder »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #86
throwawaysleep wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

Weavers weren't concerned about "passion" for cloth, they were concerned about their economic ability to compete with machines that required huge capital outlays and centralized profit at the expense of the middle and lower class workers.

Sounds like we're repeating history then. If it were just about passion then artists wouldn't worry about AI because it doesn't deprive them of their hobby. It's only a problem because it takes away from their income.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#176

Post by rickydroll »

hpen wrote: post #166
rickydroll wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.

Are you not aware of how music is sold / streamed etc?

Yes, I am. Music is currently layered by a series of copyrights, including their copyright music copyright, mechanical reproduction copyright, etc. Each stage exists as a layer to accommodate a new technology, and rent is extracted in each stage.

Music on physical media, files, or streams is not sold. You rent a "performance license," which permits playing the music on that media. The type of performance license depends on the context in which you are "performing." see: https://www.soundreef.com/en/blog/music-licenses/

As I said, copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It creates a monopoly, and the purpose of a monopoly is to enable rent-seeking.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#177

Post by hpen »

rickydroll wrote: post #162
hpen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.

Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.

You jump to conclusions in you comment by saying "rent is extracted" and "monopoly". Copyright doesn't necessarily mean "monopoly".

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#178

Post by hpen »

rickydroll wrote: post #162
hpen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.

Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.

Is it rent seeking if the author owns those rights?

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#179

Post by caconym_ »

lolinder wrote: post #174
caconym_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. With the possible exception of Wikipedia illustrations, I wasn't aware we had a meaningful shortage of any of those things. On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc…

> On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc.) already available than I could ever hope to get through in my lifetime. As someone who has a very specific taste in video games, I beg to differ. If you happen to exist in the space targeted by AAA or if you don't have strong preferences for what you get out of an indie game the status quo is fine, but it's been a whi…

Right now automation allows neither of those things. The best you're going to get is existing games reskinned with AI slop assets---the new shovelware.

In some hypothetical future world where GenAI content really is as novel and worthwhile as content made by humans, this will be a different conversation. Until then, I doubt it's going to satisfy even the tiny minority of people who literally want to play the same game, watch the same movie, read the same book, etc. over and over again until they die. But it certainly has the potential to severely damage the overall quality of the media landscape in the way I described, because people who care about money more than quality are in the driver's seat.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#180

Post by throwawaysleep »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #123
throwawaysleep wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role will remain, but the job will change dramatically into one with a higher level of product focus. The "software craftsmen" type will become more obsolete than they are already. RAM used to matter. Now, who even looks at how much RAM their app uses?

I constantly look at how much RAM other people's software uses. I have to work hard to keep it down, otherwise my computer hangs. I would appreciate if software authors cared a bit more.

But will you pay for it? Appreciation isn't very valuable.
Post reply on HN