291–300 of 783 posts
You guys have fun arguing. I'm gonna be building cool stuff.
Still waiting for this massive wave of cool stuff.
Moreover, all of the tools that the people who build software use are also cool stuff.
It's also not just code and software that is benefitting from these new tools. Use of LLMs in engineering tasks is blowing up right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 memorisati…
The New York Times is suing both OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The Authors Guild is suing OpenAI. Getty Images is suing Stability AI. Disney is suing Midjourney. Universal Music Group and Sony have filed suits against multiple AI companies.
> so copyright doesn’t get involved at all.
The dozens of ongoing cases that discredit that statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Citation needed, as well as your precise definition of "worthwhile".
> Even if they are not enjoyable.
Huh?
> The dissemination of ideas from an activist perspective is uninhabitable
Yes, I understand that anti-copyright activists want to abolish copyright.
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.
IP attorney here and actively working on this problem. nla: if you create content online (public repo code, blog, podcast, YouTube, publishing) the smartest thing you can do if to file a US copyright, even if you have a hobby blog. Anthropic paid $1.5B in a class settlement to authors because it was piracy of copyrighted works. If we as a HN community had our works protected, there are potentially huge statutory dama…
I'll bite. I have always been told copyright is inherit. Does it cost money to file a copyright? Do I need to do it for each blog post? For each gist? I'll totally setup some scripts to make it happen if it what actually needs doing to have the copyright I expected. Edit: remember not to down vote ideas you disagree with. I think it was only down vote things that lower the discourse
So yes, set up some scripts, you can go back 90 days from when you file (you get a grace period). Also if you're publishing frequently to a blog, repo, or newsletter, you can save cost by filing each article under a group registration. Ping me if you need help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ownership is entirely a legal concept. Violating it in any form, intellectual or otherwise, is generally free.
I strongly disagree. Copying is fundamentally different than taking because the original source still retains their data. Copying cannot be categorized as theft in any sane society.
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
So if you pour your heart and soul into writing a novel over the course of years, and it becomes modestly successful earning you a little money in return for your sweat, I should be allowed to just copy it, give it away for free (hell, even say I wrote it – it's not as if it's even yours to own in your world)?
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…
Worse, the constant AI scraping is actually costing content providers additional money for no return. At least Google/Bing/Yahoo scraping would then be used to provide links back to your content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even when we do actually put physical locks on things they are mostly there to show that someone breaking in did so intentionally and not at all designed to prevent motivated attackers.