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

AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

axelk.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#161

Post by qotgalaxy »

WarmWash wrote: post #156
dvduval wrote: post #27

The broader problem of original sources not being given credit in a way that rewards them remains. Websites owners are paying to host their content so that spiders can come and crawl them and index it into the AI and then if they’re lucky, they might get a citation, but otherwise there’s very little reward for being a provider of content. And of course, this is something that’s getting worse and worse. Why look at a…

It's never been a problem with people ad-blocking for the last 20 years, why is it suddenly a problem now? We've been celebrating denying creators revenue for decades... Maybe this is just the internet hypocricy of "When I do it, it's good, when they do it, it's bad".

[dead]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#162

Post by trinari »

aaarrm wrote: post #148
dvduval wrote: post #27

The broader problem of original sources not being given credit in a way that rewards them remains. Websites owners are paying to host their content so that spiders can come and crawl them and index it into the AI and then if they’re lucky, they might get a citation, but otherwise there’s very little reward for being a provider of content. And of course, this is something that’s getting worse and worse. Why look at a…

Is it possible able to host your website in a way so that it couldn't be found via search engines (and thus wouldn't be crawlable I hope)? I know this has repercussions on findability, but if that wasn't a concern, I'm curious how one might circumvent getting crawled.

robots.txt is a way of leaving the door unlocked but kindly asking bots to stay outside.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#163

Post by pull_my_finger »

What gets me is when this was brought up, they said "requiring explicit permission will kill the AI industry"[1]. No shit! Why do you think all the rest of us didn't build a business/"industry" around stealing shit? They could have done it at a slower pace while respecting copyright laws, but they were too greedy to be first to market and secure a hold.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/news/674366/nick-clegg-uk-ai-artist...

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#164

Post by gensym »

peterbell_nyc wrote: post #47

I do just want to highlight that this is also what humans do. We read a bunch of content online and then use it in our work product. The vast majority of the value that I provide comes from copyrighted information that I have ingested - either directly with a payment to the creator (bought and read the book, paid for and attended the seminar) or indirectly via third party blog posts or summaries where I did not then…

> We read a bunch of content online and then use it in our work product.

We also have societal norms around plagiarism.

Additionally, the claim that because people have the right to do something then we should extend that right to machines is strong. (And one I certainly reject).

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#165

Post by bigstrat2003 »

esikich wrote: post #147
jayd16 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still waiting for this massive wave of cool stuff.

You're acting as if developers haven't been using AI to build for years already.

And yet, no cool stuff from those developers.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#166

Post by recitedropper »

booleandilemma wrote: post #90

This site is strange. I'm pretty sure there's lots of AI shilling happening on it. I don't think the opinions here are authentic, they seem to be opinions that the AI company CEOs would hold, not the disenfranchised 99%. I used to trust HN, I'm not so sure I can now.

Completely agreed. It looks like there is a concerted effort to "massage" opinion away from any substantial questioning of the ethics, companies, and people behind the AI push. Some of this inevitabilism is organic of course, but there is too much for it all to be so.

HN is way too central for shared sentiment in the tech world for these companies not to do some amount of astroturfing. AI companies have shown at every single turn that they act out of self-interest and greed, not of moral principles. So it isn't surprising, even if it is still sad, to see those who are commanding the most capital in human history act with such callousness.

I think the appropriate course of response is to stop adding to public spaces on the internet. No doubt painful for those of us who have so benefitted from the freely shared thoughts of others. But if well-funded bullies are going come in, steal everything, ruin the commons, and then say "this is the new normal, deal with it", there isn't much the rest of us can do other than stop feeding them.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#167

Post by Findecanor »

saghm wrote: post #99
mrbluecoat wrote: post #31

> AI ... do some "learning" Is AI plural or is that a typo?

Rarely is the question asked: is our AI learning? (For those not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism )

Actual researchers in neuroscience do not agree that what artificial neural networks are doing is "learning", no. When biological beings learn, the process is more complicated.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#169

Post by storus »

This is really not so clear cut as "fair use" might cover 99% of all data scrapping; you are not reproducing the originals just use them to estimate probabilistic distribution of tokens in pre-training. You are never going to get the exact book word-for-word using LLMs.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#170

Post by seba_dos1 »

Nursie wrote: post #134
iloveoof wrote: post #120

I don’t know if this author supports OSS but I’ll share this because HN generally is full of people with that mindset. It’s deeply ironic that if you forget about LLMs and look only at the outcome—-we’ve found a way to legally circumvent copyright and the siloing of coding knowledge, making it so you can build on top of (almost) the whole of human coding knowledge without needing to pay a rent or ask for permission—-…

I’m not sure this stands up to much examination when looking at (for example) copyleft, which seeks to give people access to source of binaries they are running. If an LLM can (for the sake of argument) spit out copyleft code which is then used on closed systems, we’ve done an end-run around the protections keeping that open.

Exactly. It looks like GP is guilty of the thing they accused others of - their understanding of what FLOSS is about is so shallow it resembles an aesthetic.
Post reply on HN