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

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#11

Post by Carrok »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's just doing what many human artists would do

I really don't think so. If I paid a human artist to make the prompt in the title, and I didn't explicitly say "Indiana Jones" I would think it should be fairly obvious to the human artist that I do _not_ want Indiana Jones. If they gave me back a picture of, clearly, Indiana Jones, I would ask them why they didn't create something original.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#12

Post by shermantanktop »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

I agree. But massive changes in scale or leverage can undermine this type of principled stand.

One death is a murder; 100k deaths is a war or a pandemic. One piece of chewing gum on the ground will get you a caning in Singapore; when everyone does it, that's NYC.

Up until now, one had to have some level of graphical or artistic skills to do this, but not anymore. Again, I agree that it attaches to the human...but we now have many more humans to attach it to.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#13

Post by axus »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

Don't worry, the lawsuit will name a corporation that made it, not the AI tool.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#14

Post by chimpanzee »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP.

It isn’t an independent human. It is a service paid for by customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user, the image has thus been used commercially.

In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in order to infringe copyright.

And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce copies unless they are demonstrating mastery of technique or expressing adoration. And if it happens spontaneously, they are then frustrated and try to defend themselves by claiming to never have even experienced the original material. (As happens with simplistic, but popular musical riffs.) But AI explicitly is trained on every material it can get its hands on and so cannot make such a defense.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#15

Post by jMyles »

timewizard wrote: post #9

> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to I completely disagree. It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do. How anyone expected novel outputs from this technology is beyond me. It's highly noticeable if you do a minimal analysis, but all modern "AI" tools are just copyright thiefs. They're just there to whitewash aw…

> It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do

That's true of all the best artists ever.

> They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content.

That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is a "thief". To be a thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my house and steal something.

When someone copies or remixes my music, I'm often not even aware that it has occurred. It's hard to imagine how that can be cast as genuine theft.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#16

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should rightfully attach.

I am paying OpenAI. So they are producing these copyrighted works and giving them to me for their own commercial benefit. Normally that's illegal. But somehow not when you're just doing it en masse.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#17

Post by derektank »

Carrok wrote: post #11
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's just doing what many human artists would do I really don't think so. If I paid a human artist to make the prompt in the title, and I didn't explicitly say "Indiana Jones" I would think it should be fairly obvious to the human artist that I do _not_ want Indiana Jones. If they gave me back a picture of, clearly, Indiana Jones, I would ask them why they didn't create something original.

I actually don't think it would be obvious. By not explicitly saying Indiana Jones when so obviously describing Indiana Jones, there is an implication present. But I think many human artists would probably ask you, "Wait, so Indiana Jones, or are you looking for something different," before immediately diving in.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#18

Post by IgorPartola »

chimpanzee wrote: post #14
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

> It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. It isn’t an independent human. It is a service paid for by customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user, the image has thus been used commercially. In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in order to infringe copyright. And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce…

If I pay you to tell me the plot of Indiana Jones, privately, because I don’t have time to watch it, and you agree, did you violate copyright laws?

If you do it for free, is it different?

If I ask a friend to draw me as Indiana Jones? Or pay an artist? In either case I just want that picture to put in my rec room, not to sell.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#19

Post by flenserboy »

the guardrails are probably going to end up being way too close together when the dust settles — imagine if something as simple as "young wizard" would be enough to trip the warnings. someone could be looking to do an image from Feist's early novels, or of their own work, & that will be verboten. it may turn out that we're facing the strongest copyright holders being able to limit everyone's legitimate use of these tools.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#20

Post by bluefirebrand »

flenserboy wrote: post #19

the guardrails are probably going to end up being way too close together when the dust settles — imagine if something as simple as "young wizard" would be enough to trip the warnings. someone could be looking to do an image from Feist's early novels, or of their own work, & that will be verboten. it may turn out that we're facing the strongest copyright holders being able to limit everyone's legitimate use of these t…

I would expect "young wizard" to generate something similar to Harry Potter more than Pug, tbh
Post reply on HN