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

341–350 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#341

Post by mindcandy »

> AI takes in all the input, whether the original authors have consented or not, and do some "learning"

What would it mean for authors who publish content publicly to the web, without access restrictions, to provide consent for learning from it?

"EULA: Most people are allowed to learn from this text. If you work in an AI-related field, even though you can clearly see this page because you are reading this text right now, you are not permitted to learn anything from it. Bob Stanton, you are an a-hole. I do not consent to you learning from this web page. Dave Simmons, you are annoying. But, I'll give you a pass. For now... Also: plumbers. I do not like plumbers for reasons I will not elaborate. No plumbers may learn from my writing in an way."

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#342

Post by gabbagool »

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…

I agree with this whole heartedly. What's the point of even having copyright law at this point?

What's even crazier to think about is that to use the latest versions of these models for which you supplied training data, you have to pay hundreds of dollars a month. I would love to get a settlement check proportional to my model weights. Even if it's $0.10, at least everyone out there will get what they're owed.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#343

Post by paulsutter »

Historical scandals are finally coming to light now that the AI issue has raised awareness:

- Ernest Hemingway trained his own neurons on Tolstoy, Twain, and Turgenev without ever paying them royalties!

- William Faulkner trained his neurons on Joyce and de Balzac

- George Orwell trained his neurons on Swift, Dickens, and Jack London

- Virginia Woolf trained her neurons on Proust and Chekhov

Now that these historical wrongs have been exposed, it is obvious that some reparations are in order, likely from anyone who has benefited directly or indirectly from these takings!

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#344

Post by exploderate »

pluc wrote: post #46

Seriously how is this surprising? We all know AI companies stole troves of data to train their models, why do you think they'll stop? Have they faced consequences for the mass theft of copyrighted data? You can't steal or profit off of that data, but it's fine for them for whatever reason. I guess because they're a force for good in the world and are pushing humanity forward eh?

That data is not stolen. It's still there.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#345

Post by koonsolo »

foobar1726 wrote: post #256
deaton wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.

You should check out this thing called open source software

You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws.

Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#347

Post by nearbuy »

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).

People have been pirating books online for 20 years and in that time the number of books published per year has increased 15-fold. A number of my favorites have been released in that time.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#348

Post by [deleted] »

dmitrygr wrote: post #329
marssaxman wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely, and that is why history shows so few examples of any art having been created prior to the invention of copyright: nobody had any reason to do it.

Prior to the invention of copyright, it was not very cheap or easy to make a faithful copy of something. Books had to be type set by hand, before the printing press they had to be copied by hand. Photography of good enough quality to reproduce a painting is very very recent. So is ability to record a play well enough to enjoy it like you are there later.

[deleted]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#349

Post by uberduper »

malfist wrote: post #278
uberduper wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm building the same stuff I've always built. Just faster and with less dependence on others. Not having to argue with devs that have their own agendas has been my biggest benefit from coding agents.

> Not having to argue with devs that have their own agendas Agendas like, "let's not check our API key into a public github repo" or "Let's not store passwords in plaintext" or "Don't expose customer data via a public api"?

No. Agendas like, "I need to push my ideas for promotion credits."

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#350

Post by [deleted] »

Jtarii wrote: post #306
enraged_camel wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. You do realize people created and shared things long before copyright became a thing, right?

Can you explain how something like the Lord of the Rings film series gets created in a world with no IP laws.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN