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

311–320 of 927 posts

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

#311

Post by drob518 »

Lerc wrote: post #301
pixl97 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it. Wait, I'm still trying to figure out the difference between your imaginary world and the world we live in now?

I think the main difference is if everything were freely available they may attempt to monetize the life out of it, but they will fail if they can't actually provide something people actually want. There's no more "You want a thing so you're going to buy our thing because we are the exclusive providers of it. That means we don't even have to make it very good" If anyone in the world could make a Star Wars movie, the…

I’m sure the best independent Star Wars movie would be infinitely better than what Disney has been shoveling out for the last couple decades.

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

#312

Post by slg »

dcow wrote: post #304
slg wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what was often missed in the previous round of AI discourse that criticized these companies for forcing diversity into their systems after the fact. Every suave spy being Daniel Craig is just the apolitical version of every nurse being a woman or every criminal being Black. Converging everything to the internet's most popular result represents an inaccurate and a dumped down version of the world. You don't ha…

It’s only a flaw insofar as it’s used in ways in which the property of the tool is problematic. Stereotypes are use for good and bad all the time, let’s not pretend that we have to attack every problem with a funky shaped hammer because we can’t admit that it’s okay to have specialized tools in the tool belt.

I don't follow your analogy. Is the "specialized tool" the AI or the way that it returns "problematic" results? Because I'm not saying the system is bad for using negative stereotypes. I'm saying the system is bad because it removes natural variety from the results making them misleading. The reliance on stereotypes are just one example of this phenomenon with another example being "suave English spy" only returning Daniel Craig.

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

#313

Post by HideousKojima »

mvdtnz wrote: post #221
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'm guessing you've never created something of value before. People are entitled to the fruits of their labour and control of their intellectual property.

>People are entitled to the fruits of their labour and control of their intellectual property.

No they aren't, intellectual property is a legal fiction and ideas belong to all of humanity. Humanity did fine without intellectual property for thousands of years, it's a relatively recent creation.

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

#315

Post by drob518 »

If you haven’t read Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture, I highly recommend it for addressing some of these issues. It’s vintage now but all the arguments are still relevant. Lessig was one of the drivers of the Creative Commons licenses.

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

#316

Post by codedokode »

card_zero wrote: post #302
codedokode wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask why you want to use someone's work instead of creating your own?

I mean, it's fun. Ever listened to the KLF, and things from the era before sampling was heavily sat on, such as the album 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) - ? I don't claim it's very good, but it was definitely fun. And the motivation for using existing works, instead of creating your own, is similar to the motivation for using existing words, instead of creating your own. They're reference points, people recognize…

> is similar to the motivation for using existing words

I don't think it's like that. If we take music, for example, the existing word would be a note or a scale or a musical instrument or a style, but a melody would be an existing sentence. As for sampling, there is creative usage of samples, like Prodigy for example where it is difficult to even recognize the source.

Also today there is some leeway in copyright enforcement. For example, I often see non-commercial amateur covers of commercial songs and the videos don't get taken down.

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

#317

Post by nradov »

dcow wrote: post #310
munificent wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI democratizes access to pop culture. Pop culture was already democratized. That's literally what makes it popular culture. > So now when I connect with a human it’s not to share memes, it’s higher order. I suspect that improving the image quality of the memes does not measurably improve the quality of the human connection here. > IOW we can spend more time playing D&D because we didn't have to draw our characters…

It's a rhetorical example. Suppose you need to create an avatar of your character. Why does it follow that it's not beneficial to have an AI help generate the avatar? You're responding to the specific example, not the general argument. Unless your counter is that whatever humanity is doing that AI is helping is probably stupid and shouldn't be done anyway.

No one needs an avatar. You can draw a stick figure or take a selfie or whatever. This is all so silly and trivial.

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

#318

Post by robocat »

eaglelamp wrote: post #227
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…

If we are going to have a general discussion about copyright reform at a national level, I'm all for it. If we are going to let billion dollar corporations break the law to make even more money and invent legal fictions after the fact to protect them, I'm completely against it. Training a model is not equivalent to training a human. Freedom of information for a mountain of graphics cards in a privately owned data cen…

> invent legal fictions after the fact

You're reading into the situation...

For the US getting legislators to do anything is impossible: even the powerful fail.

When a legal system is totally roadblocked, what other choice is there? The reason all startups ask forgiveness is that permission is not available.

(edit). Shit. I guess that could be a political statement. Sorry

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

#319

Post by card_zero »

jkhdigital wrote: post #282
card_zero wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, that sounds like the basic argument for copyright: "I created a cool thing, therefore I should be able to milk it for the rest of my life". Without this perk, creatives are less motivated. Would that be bad? I guess an extreme version would be a world where you can only publish anonymously and with no tangible reward.

I hate to paint with such a broad brush, but I’d venture that “creatives” are not primarily motivated by profit. It is almost a truism that money corrupts the creative endeavour.

There are various ways to turn creativity into money, even without publishing any kind of artwork. Basically all skilled jobs and entrepreneurial enterprises require creativity. And if you do have an artwork, you can still seek profit through acclaim, even without copyright: interviews, public appearances. Artists once had patrons - but that tends to put aristocrats in control of art.

So money will motivate a lot of the creativity that goes on.

Meanwhile, if you dabble in some kind of art or craft while working in a factory to make ends meet, that kind of limits you to dabbling, because you'll have no time to do it properly. Money also buys equipment and helpers, sometimes useful.

On the other hand, yes, it ruins the art. There's a 10cc song about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_Art%27s_Sake_(song)

Though, this reminds me of an interesting aside: the origin of the phrase "art for art's sake" was not about money, but about aesthetics. It meant something like "stop pushing opinions, just show me a painting".

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

#320

Post by o11c »

ryandamm wrote: post #235
masfuerte wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This may not be a particularly popular opinion, but current copyright laws in the US are pretty clearly in favor of training an AI as a transformative act, and covered by fair use. (I did confirm this belief in conversation with an IP attorney earlier this week, by the way, though I myself am not a lawyer.) The best-positioned lawsuits to win, like NYTimes vs. OpenAI/MS, is actually based on violating terms of use, r…

Training alone, perhaps. But the way the AIs are actually used (regardless of prompt engineering) is a direct example of what is forbidden by the case that introduced the "transformative" language.

> if [someone] thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

Of course, we live in a post-precedent world, so who knows?

Post reply on HN