Things are about to get worse for generative AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#111

Post by dkjaudyeqooe » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:41 PM UTC

Intox wrote: post #12

Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.

> a few copyright holders

By which you mean every copyright holder.

> AGI in the near future

Something that is purely speculative, undefined, and has been promised in the near future for 50+ years.

I don't see copyright holders lying down for someone else's benefit and I don't see governments gutting copyright, contract law, and several other avenues of protection that copyright holders can deploy in the name of something that doesn't exist and may not ever exist.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#112

Post by lewhoo » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:42 PM UTC

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #69

lewhoo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.

creation should happen for its own sake. You don't see GMs stopping chess because bots are that much better.

> creation should happen for its own sake

Creation should happen for whatever reason its creator becomes inspired with. The only absolute I can think of is no one should actually categorize worthy and unworthy motifs.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#113

Post by CaptainFever » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:42 PM UTC

rco8786 wrote: post #74

Intox wrote: post #12

Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.

The EU is already salivating over the idea

The EU and many other countries already exempted training from copyright restrictions. The only condition EU added was opt-out, and even then it can be ignored if you're doing research. [1]

[1] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainmen...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#114

Post by AlienRobot » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:43 PM UTC

golol wrote: post #93

geraldwhen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at a copyrighted image posted by an author is not infringement. Printing that image onto a shirt and selling it is infringement. That’s what OpenAI is doing.

But OpenAI is not selling the rights to any images, or are they? When I pay for Dall-E, does the contract give me any rights for a work? If not then there is no issue.

Copyright is the right to copy things. You don't even need to sell it. This is why Wikipedia images are mostly Copyleft images.

Google gets a pass because nobody is suing Google. When people try to sue Google, Google simply stops indexing them and then they start begging Google to infringe their copyright again.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#115

Post by wongarsu » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:44 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #81

meindnoch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developing AGI is a matter of national security. "Content" isn't.

US media is a huge cultural influence. It takes a ridiculous amount of mindspace globaly. However, with youtube&tiktok this seems to be changing - the most important influence is not from Hollywood but ”random” youtubers. So, ”content” is waning in influence for sure, unlike hardcore national security things like US dollar, the carrier fleet or ballistic nukes. Or AI.

On Youtube creators who are native to the anglosphere still have a big advantage. TikTok is really the big equalizer. With AI voices being the norm, nobody cares about your accent.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#116

Post by sjfjsjdjwvwvc » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:45 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #108

sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an centuries old argument. Most people don’t create to make money, they create because they __have__ to. If those motivated purely by money stop creating little of value will be lost

Most people who create for a living aren't motivated purely by money, but are driven by the necessities of capitalism to do so. You're presenting a false dichotomy, pretending to care about the quality of art, but really like everyone, you just want other people's work for free. Great art - especially in modern times when that art involves expensive education (which if you're American must be paid for with interest)…

Im happy to pay the artist directly - which is why I use services like bandcamp or buy artworks directly from artists I know personally.

I care little about paying „rightsholders“ and their ilk - so I have zero empathy if they complain about imagined losses.

Don’t jump to conclusions about people who have never even talked to

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#117

Post by AlienRobot » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:46 PM UTC

sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #88

lewhoo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.

If making money is the only reason to create maybe it’s good if they stop.

Your unwillingness to pay doesn't give you the right to steal, that only gives you the right to not take the deal and walk away.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#118

Post by losvedir » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:46 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #72

keiferski wrote: post #39

These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…

It's going to be hard to remove every single "shorthand descriptions of well-known entities" or other prompts that can be used to generate copyrighted or trademarked content. Sure, if you're not deliberately trying to generate infringing content, you can probably remove or discard those results, the trouble is the people who will try to trick the AI to generate this content, blocking those people is going to be impos…

Ironically, I don't think it would be that hard with LLMs. I tried asking ChatGPT to describe what copyrighted characters each description is alluding to and it had no problem doing so.[0]

[0] https://chat.openai.com/share/e8256470-8e45-4f36-9c84-026be1...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#119

Post by CaptainFever » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:47 PM UTC

nojs wrote: post #68

In practice, what happens next when websites all start to block openai by default (or change their TOS to disallow OpenAI’s crawlers)? It seems like there’s little incentive not to do this, because unlike Google OpenAI isn’t bringing any traffic or eyeballs. It may end up being a default setting in Wordpress for example. But OpenAI presumably can’t afford to pay every single long tail source of content on the whole i…

> or change their TOS to disallow OpenAI’s crawlers

Additionally, this TOS can be ignored if you're in a jurisdiction with TDM exceptions.

> Finally, owing to the bar against contractual override, once a user complies with any conditions for gaining lawful access to a work (such as signing as a subscriber and/or making payment), he will be entitled to use the work for TDM purposes even if the terms of use expressly prohibit this. Content owners may wish to relook their business models and, where necessary, price-in the possibility that the licensed works may be used for TDM.

Source: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2021/singapore/coming-u...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#120

Post by Baldbvrhunter » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 12:47 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #18

Baldbvrhunter wrote: post #2

I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…

In your example, there are missing details. Who owns the output? The way you've described it, that would typically mean that the guitarist is creating a "work for hire" so the ownership transfers to you, but that's a contract detail that would need to be resolved. For whoever owns the output also owns the liability of the output. You yourself might separately be able to pursue a claim against the guitarist for breech…

Midjourney's TOS

> You may not use the Service to try to violate the intellectual property rights of others, including copyright, patent, or trademark rights. Doing so may subject you to penalties including legal action or a permanent ban from the Service.

Perplexity's

> Intellectual Property Rights

> Perplexity AI acknowledges and respects the intellectual property rights of all individuals and entities, and expects all users of the Service to do the same. As a user of the Service, you are granted access for your own personal, non-commercial use only.