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

161–170 of 927 posts

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

#161

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

fragmede wrote: post #159
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. How is copyright stifling innovation? You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on. You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.

Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…

This has nothing to do with stifling innovation.

I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write).

Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...

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

#162

Post by dragonwriter »

masfuerte wrote: post #154
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

I don't really care. Either enforce the current copyright regime and sue the AI companies to dust. Or abolish copyright and let us all go hog wild. But this halfway house where you can ignore the law as long as you've got enough money is disgusting.

Or treat AI training as within the coverage of the current fair use regime (which is certainly defensible within the current copyright regime), while prosecuting the use of AI models to create infringing copies and derivative works that do not themselves have permission or a reasonable claim to be within the scope of fair use as a violation (and prosecuted hosted AI firms for contributory infringement where their actions with regard to such created infringements fit the existing law on that.)

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

#163

Post by tastyface »

mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

A different way of looking at it: AI, by design, defaults to regurgitating the poppiest of pop culture content. Every whip-wielding archaeologist is now Harrison Ford. Every suave British spy is now Daniel Craig. With the power of AI, creativity is dead and buried.

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

#164

Post by Smithalicious »

mvieira38 wrote: post #96
coderenegade wrote: post #90

I don't see why this is an issue? The prompts imply obvious and well-known characters, and don't make it clear that they want an original answer. Most humans would probably give you similar answers if you didn't add an additional qualifier like "not Indiana Jones". The only difference is that a human can't exactly reproduce the likeness of a famous character without significant time and effort. The real issue here is…

It's an IP theft machine. Humans wouldn't be allowed to publish these pictures for profit, but OpenAI is allowed to "generate" them?

Won't somebody think of the billionaire IP holders? The horror.

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

#165

Post by fragmede »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #161
fragmede wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…

This has nothing to do with stifling innovation. I am yet to meet a writer who doesn't even attempt to write for fear that whatever they write will be found to be in violation of copyright (unless they are the type of writer that is always finding excuses not to write). Several people have made successful careers out of fan fiction...

JK Rowling never has to work again in her life because she wrote a couple of books that were exceedingly popular. Because she doesn't have to work, she's not been forced to come up with new stuff. How is that not stifling?

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

#166

Post by tshaddox »

MgB2 wrote: post #30

Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…

Idk, a couple of the examples might be generic enough that you wouldn't expect a very specific movie character. But most of the prompts make it extremely clear which movie character you would expect to see, and I would argue that the chat bot is working as expected by providing that.

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

#167

Post by halfnormalform »

fragmede wrote: post #159
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. How is copyright stifling innovation? You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on. You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.

Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a thi…

The carpenter can sell the design of the chair.

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

#168

Post by flats »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #147
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but my anti-AI sentiment in this regard is not that IP law is flawless and beyond reproach, far from it. I'm merely saying that as long as we're all required to put up with it, that OpenAI and company should also have to put up with it. It's incredibly disingenuous the way these companies have taken advantage of publicly available material on an industrial scale, used said materi…

Very well put. I’m open to a future in which nothing is copyrighted & everything is in the public domain, but the byproduct of that public domain material should _also_ be owned by the public.

Otherwise, we’re making the judgement that the originators of the IP should not be compensated for their labor, while the AI labs should be. Of course, training & running the models take compute resources, but the ultimate aim of these companies is to profit above & beyond those costs, just as artists hope to be compensated above & beyond the training & resources required to make the art in the first place.

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

#169

Post by jMyles »

janalsncm wrote: post #63
jMyles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thie…

> That's true of all the best artists ever. Just to play Devil’s advocate for a moment, why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software? We can make whatever rules we want to. A human might implicitly copy, but they are not infinitely scalable. If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer…

> why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software?

Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?" If the technology of our age is our birthright, don't we have the right to engage whatever mathematics we find inspiring with its aid?

> If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer program with a marginal cost of zero.

...that sounds like a good argument in favor of the always-available computer program.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

why_at wrote: post #132
Avicebron wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but if OpenAI makes any money/commercial gains from producing a Ghibli-esque image when you ask, say you pay a subscription to OpenAI. What percentage of that subscription is owed to Ghibli for running Ghibli art through OpenAI's gristmill and providing the ability to create that image with that "vibe/style" etc. How long into perpetuity is OpenAI allowed to re-use that original art whenever their model produc…

Yeah that's fair, I'm trying to create an analogy to other services which are similar to help me understand. If e.g. Patreon hosts an artist who will draw a picture of Indiana Jones for me on commission, then my money is going to both Patreon and the artist. Should Patreon also police their artists to prevent reproducing any copyrighted characters?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN