Live data from Hacker News

AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

axelk.ee

431–440 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#431
post #352

What do people imagine can be done about it at this point? Offer a concrete suggestion. Any law or tax against this will give a huge advantage to other countries. It's already over, there's no going back to a world where this didn't happen. Let's just hope some good comes of it.

How about requiring AI companies to pay creators for training rights? Alternatively, models trained on the commons must be owned by the commons. Right now these AI companies are trying to have it both ways: it’s The People’s Data for training on comrade but ownership is privatized.

Practically speaking, who is going to enforce such a regime? Do you really want to give Chinese companies such a huge competitive advantage, that they aren't subject to the same costs as western companies? How do you even sort out which "creators" are owed, and how much? It's next to impossible, and would drown the legal system in litigation; it would likely cause more problems than it solves. On top of which you can find open weights for most, if not all, of the scraped material already. If you make those illegal to use, or prohibitively expensive, you just destroyed local LLM legality, and put the technology firmly in the hands of only the monopolists.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#432
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think we are at the point where copyright doesn't exist anymore, at least for AI

This is insane. How will any intellectual or artistic work be sustainable in this world? As a teenager I used to proclaim that "you can't own bits, maaaan" all the time. I've since grown up. Intellectual property is essential to safeguarding intellectual work. I'm not saying this out of greed – I'm a vocal advocate for the free software movement. It, too, relies on a semi-sane framework of intellectual property. So d…

That's the neat part, you won't.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#433
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis_(software)

Yes, but: > Although Anubis could be altered to mine cryptocurrency to serve as proof of work, Iaso has rejected this idea: "I don't want to touch cryptocurrency with a 20 foot pole." Which in my mind is a shame. Crypto is an absolute mess, yes, but this seems like an elegant way to get something back for putting things out there.

The problem is that much of the cost is borne by humans accessing the sites. People generally get real mad when they find out you’re using their computers to mine crypto.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#434

I think what gets conflated are two aspects. 1. LLM/transformer technology is legitimately amazing and revolutionary. 2. In the end, they function as an enormous, effective database for most human knowledge. Point 1 obscures the fact that if someone just created an SQL database with every digital artifact in existence and provided it for free upon request, there would be no ambiguity whether that was legal or not. Bu…

[deleted]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

You are not a developer so you don't understand you can compile to a binary without revealing your sources?

No copyright -> No GPL -> anyone can release their own close source version of open source software.

Why do you think GPL was create in the first place? We always had public domain you know.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era?

Copying was prohibitively expensive.

[deleted]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#438
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.

> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era?

They tended to be solo productions, or sponsored by aristocratic patrons. Anyone suggesting that we could create movies, TV, music, or games on the scale we do today, without copyright, does not seem worth taking seriously.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#439
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure you're right! I mostly just found the similarities with a famous quote using the word "learning" in a weird way with a plural funny

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#440
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney owns the 1992 production of Aladdin so who exactly are they "stealing" from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin The argument, as I understand it is that the "theft" is in quotes because it's not literally copyright infringement, but fair use of an old public-domain folk tale that ends up consuming the latter. Today, when kids know "Aladdin" they know the copyrighted/trademarked Disney character, not the traditional folk tale- that's the "theft" that happened.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN