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

221–230 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#221

Post by JimDabell »

LatencyKills wrote: post #157
IcyWindows wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?

> I'm trained on protected works. That someone, at some point, paid for. I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. I'm not anti-AI. I'd just like to see companies play by the rules everyone else has to follow.

> I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either.

Because when you say you are “using” the song, what you mean is that you are distributing copies of the song, which is protected by copyright.

When AI companies train on the song, the model is learning from it. Outside of the rare cases of memorisation, this is not distributing copies and so copyright doesn’t have any say in the matter.

Learning isn’t copying, so copyright doesn’t get involved at all.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#222

Post by _aavaa_ »

caconym_ wrote: post #184
tancop wrote: post #171

if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal

I wonder how many of the books I love would still have been written in a world where somebody could scoop them all up and post them on the internet for free (and run ads).

I wonder how many would be written if copyright was only 20 years instead of more than a century? To the point that most people will never be legally allowed to directly build off of the culture they grew up in.

Lord of the rings will be under copyright til roughly 2050. I think Tolkien's estate has gotten more than enough money from that book and it's time to let other use the word hobbit without the threat of a lawsuit.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#223

Post by gspr »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #196
tancop wrote: post #171

if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal

The alternative to strong property rights and norms is secrecy and enforcement.

This is a strictly worse world in almost every sense. It's as if we abolished physical property rights and suggested people arm themselves to keep what is (was) theirs instead. Civilization, gone.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#224

Post by zetanor »

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".

I am in favor of severely limiting both copyright and advertising, but for the benefit of everyone, not just for the benefit of a few "AI" companies.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#225

Post by 0rganize »

tancop wrote: post #171

if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal

lol, never going to happen. I remember when the RIAA was successfully able to shake down tens of thousands of individuals for pirating music in the 2000s.

If you’re a pleb, stealing copyrighted materials will get you some nasty fines, lawsuits and criminal charges. If you’re a megacorp with unlimited buckets of cash, then there is no accountability.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#227

Post by nashashmi »

caconym_ wrote: post #184
tancop wrote: post #171

if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal

I wonder how many of the books I love would still have been written in a world where somebody could scoop them all up and post them on the internet for free (and run ads).

The worthwhile ones would still be written. Even if they are not enjoyable. The dissemination of ideas from an activist perspective is uninhibitable

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#229

Post by codexb »

saghm wrote: post #91
adamzwasserman wrote: post #39

People need to cope with the fact that no thought is original. Even Newton and Leibniz were having the same thoughts at the same time. Get over it.

When did the last original thought happen then? Clearly thoughts must have been original at some point, or there wouldn't be any at all

Did those original thoughts not build upon all the original thoughts that came before them?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#230

Post by stevemadere »

ecommerceguy wrote: post #145

I remember playing around with Writesonic in my days of spammy seo tactics (some of my products weren't allowed on marketplaces & advertising platforms due to hazmat products so..). Often times I would see my own product descriptions nearly verbatim in the output. 100% creators should get compensated by ai platforms for their work. Further, I can see a day where someone like Reddit will close off or license their dat…

Reddit seems to me like the worst example for this.

Reddit does not create the content on their site, the users do.

If anybody’s going to get compensated for that content, it should be the users, not Reddit. Complaining that Reddit is losing out on the monetization of their users’ output seems problematic to me. It feels like shilling for a pimp.

Post reply on HN