Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude for Creative Work

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#111

Post by locknitpicker »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #92
yorwba wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not owning the rights to some content and somebody else owning those rights are not the same thing. If someone else owns the copyright and you redistribute their stuff without permission, they have grounds to sue you. If nobody owns the copyright, because it expired long ago or because it came into being without human creative input, you can sell it just fine. So can everyone else, of course. Now, if you put your own…

Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (it demonstrably can't even on a CEO live stream.) Most models will happily spew any statistically salient trademark, copyrighted and or patented code/music/images/video. Note too, GPL/LGPL is a contaminating license, so legal submarines will surface sooner or later if injected into closed-source projects. The "how" it h…

> Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (...)

Your comment makes no sense. The whole concept of "piracy" is meaningless when applied to LLMs, unless you go way out of your way to prompt models to output specific works verbatim.

Also, you do not "pirate" Harry Potter if you prompt a model to generate a story that directly or indirectly involves Harry Potter in any way. Like always. You can argue trademark violations or copyright violations if someone tries to use said work for commercial purposes, but LLMs are orthogonal concepts.

Just because Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo that does not mean Adobe is liable for trademarks or copyright violations.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#112

Post by nozzlegear »

xnx wrote: post #108
make3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. They see it as an extreme treason, and I understand. They're under incredible incredible threat. They are conscious of preventing momentum in a bad direction. If they don't fight it hyper hard, a huge fraction of them will be out of a job instantly.

> There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. For all of us, acceptable use is when I use AI to do my job. Unacceptable use is when you use AI to do my job.

I don't think artists see it the same way. An artist will get pilloried by their peers, followers and fans if they post something that has even a whiff of generative AI.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#113

Post by dimaor »

doesn't it seem like the biggest knowledge and traffic theft in the history of the internet? when other sites giving you information from other sources it is illegal, but when it goes through this prediction machine, it is sort of OK?

it smells funny

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#114

Post by Joel_Mckay »

locknitpicker wrote: post #110
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no such thing as "stealing" copyrighted work Maybe true in places with different cultural values like China or India. However, piracy differs from the theft-of-service data scrapers use while ignoring EULA, site usage terms, and robot exclusion standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services Getting emotionally invested in "AI" fantasy marketing is irrational. Have a wonderful day =3 https://www.…

> Maybe true in places with different cultural values like China or India. No, this is a core trait of the whole concept of copyright. Copyright is a legal tool to allow authors to claim the exclusive right to monetize their work. But from it's inception this same legal tool is designed to ensure the public has the right to access said copyrighted works without authorization, including but not limited to the right to…

I was alluding to the lack of Software Patent and Copyright enforcement in some jurisdictions, and hoping people would connect the issue of isomorphic plagiarism on their own.

We are in the age of "Napster" for nonsense, and "free" stuff other people made is certainly a crowd-pleaser. =3

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#115

Post by Joel_Mckay »

locknitpicker wrote: post #111
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (it demonstrably can't even on a CEO live stream.) Most models will happily spew any statistically salient trademark, copyrighted and or patented code/music/images/video. Note too, GPL/LGPL is a contaminating license, so legal submarines will surface sooner or later if injected into closed-source projects. The "how" it h…

> Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (...) Your comment makes no sense. The whole concept of "piracy" is meaningless when applied to LLMs, unless you go way out of your way to prompt models to output specific works verbatim. Also, you do not "pirate" Harry Potter if you prompt a model to generate a story that directly or indirectly involves Harry Potter i…

>Your comment makes no sense.

LLM bot poisoning discourse is against YC site usage policy.

>you do not "pirate" Harry Potter

True, but firms broke the law acquiring the content, and copyright violation occurs if the output bears similarity to existing works. The cited lawyers analysis explains how violating likeness applies to everyone now regardless of notoriety.

Again, the black-box argument for washing ownership rights is a fallacy, and the links covers how LLM are built. There have already been several dozen precedent cases showing LLM output is mostly weakly obfuscated intellectual property.

Notably, the training data also includes other LLM users markdown data.

>Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo

Unless it broke the law to acquire training data (the unauthorized logo is encoded in the model), and generated statistically salient works from generic prompts. For example, "Name a cartoon mouse" will usually output Disney Mickey Mouse trademarks, rather than Mighty Mouse.

LLM are quite good at content search, but are a confirmed liability. =3

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#116

Post by xnx »

nozzlegear wrote: post #112
xnx wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. For all of us, acceptable use is when I use AI to do my job. Unacceptable use is when you use AI to do my job.

I don't think artists see it the same way. An artist will get pilloried by their peers, followers and fans if they post something that has even a whiff of generative AI.

Yes, but I think that still fits. Other people don't want you to use AI to do your job because it makes you more competitive.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#117

Post by joquarky »

ehnto wrote: post #98
locknitpicker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really clear that businesses are hoping to replace people with AI. In an industry that is already very difficult to make a stable living in, and troubled with regular plagiarism, is it really that surprising that any encroachment of AI into that space would be met with backlash? But what's the plan, then? Prevent any third party from downloading Blender and integrate it in any way with an agent?

An actual plan would involve regulation, otherwise we are just complaining loudly while things march on anyway. I fully expect things to march on anyway. I have no idea how it plays out for creative industries, I am still thinking and observing in that regard.

Who gets to write the regulations?

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#118

Post by MrScruff »

rcarr wrote: post #99
MrScruff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who works in the industry, I haven't really heard this sentiment. Artists are predominantly hostile to diffusion models, but optimistic about LLMs and their ability to help them write tools and scripts even if they're non-technical.

So basically artists are cool with developers not getting paid so long as they do...

I'm not saying it's rational or fair.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#119

Post by meetingthrower »

consumer451 wrote: post #103
shinryuu wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How and why did it change your income?

My dev skills had atrophied long ago, my career felt like it was at a weird dead-end. I was still very aware of various technologies, but didn't know the syntax of every latest framework. I still had b2b product ideas, but was never able to raise funding. I built an MVP in 2 weeks, got a co-founder to pay for my beans and rice for the year spent building, getting feedback, and refining. We now have paying users.

This is it. Great job. I'm in same boat having been a tech pm in the '01 era but having moved over to business side after. Now having fun building tech stuff again!

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#120

Post by locknitpicker »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #115
locknitpicker wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (...) Your comment makes no sense. The whole concept of "piracy" is meaningless when applied to LLMs, unless you go way out of your way to prompt models to output specific works verbatim. Also, you do not "pirate" Harry Potter if you prompt a model to generate a story that directly or indirectly involves Harry Potter i…

>Your comment makes no sense. LLM bot poisoning discourse is against YC site usage policy. >you do not "pirate" Harry Potter True, but firms broke the law acquiring the content, and copyright violation occurs if the output bears similarity to existing works. The cited lawyers analysis explains how violating likeness applies to everyone now regardless of notoriety. Again, the black-box argument for washing ownership r…

> LLM bot poisoning discourse is against YC site usage policy.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I'm afraid it sounds something that involves tinfoil-based head gear.

> True, but firms broke the law acquiring the content, and copyright violation occurs if the output bears similarity to existing works.

Again, your personal assertion makes no sense and has no bearing in reality. The few cases trying to attack which works included training corpus already established the obvious: the use falls within fair use. To question this fact you would first need to assert that you could violate copyright by glancing at a book the wrong way.

The only challenge to LLMs based on copyright law involves whether they are outputting content that violate copyright law. Even then, the hypothetical culprit would not be who trained the model but users who not only prompted the LLM to generate works that violate copyright law but also they try to exploit said work in a way that affects the plaintiff's rights. I'm talking about things like some random person prompting a model to output a book about a wizard called Barry Potter, and publishing it somewhere. Those hypothetical cases involve model users and copyright holders, not LLMs.

> Unless it broke the law to acquire training data (the unauthorized logo is encoded in the model),

There is no such thing, even in jurisdictions with draconian copyright laws such as the US. I recommend you spend a few minutes googling for cases that were in the news already.

Post reply on HN