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

The AI Hate Progression

xodium.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#141

Post by munk-a »

dvt wrote: post #133
jolmg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then if someone else uses that flyer to make money, you can sue them and you will win in court (unless the derived work is transformative, critiques it, yadda yadda). Not a lawyer, but 1) consider that sharing flyers is the normal use of the thing, and it's precisely what the business wants, to have their marketing spread to whoever needs them. 2) Doubt there's a law that whatever permission you implicitly granted…

You're confusing distribution with copyright. Even free flyers or public YouTube videos are copyrighted. If you draw a flyer then I use that flyer as a cover for a book I'm selling, you will likely win in court. (I say likely because it's up to the judge, but there's a lot of case law here.) > permission you implicitly granted There is nothing you implicitly grant anyone, except for ownership (which is explicit, beca…

If you've been following pop news there's actually a really interesting parallel to this in the lego case. Assuming the legos were consigned, assuming they were physically transferred with the store when the ownership changed, and assuming the new owners or sellers knew or had cause to know that they were consigned goods... the new owners of the store had absolutely no right to claim them as their property. Just because you physically have something it doesn't mean you own it - if you've ever heard that famously oversimplified saying "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" both consignment and distribution with limited rights are cases where we're talking about that last tenth.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#142

Post by forgetfreeman »

hectdev wrote: post #122
forgetfreeman wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I see plenty of organic interest growing out there. " I'm certain I don't know where you're looking then because I'm seeing disinterest trending towards outright disgust. Outside bay area tech forums I have yet to encounter a single human being that is in any way enthusiastic about or interested in the capabilities of AI tooling. Without exception every time AI comes up in conversation around here it's someone expre…

At work, with friends, even on dates, oddly enough. But this is a polarizing topic and I don't think any of the discussions here are actually discussions. It's more venting and downvoting anyone who has a different view on all this.

We can agree on that if little else.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#143

Post by dvt »

munk-a wrote: post #141
dvt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing distribution with copyright. Even free flyers or public YouTube videos are copyrighted. If you draw a flyer then I use that flyer as a cover for a book I'm selling, you will likely win in court. (I say likely because it's up to the judge, but there's a lot of case law here.) > permission you implicitly granted There is nothing you implicitly grant anyone, except for ownership (which is explicit, beca…

If you've been following pop news there's actually a really interesting parallel to this in the lego case. Assuming the legos were consigned, assuming they were physically transferred with the store when the ownership changed, and assuming the new owners or sellers knew or had cause to know that they were consigned goods... the new owners of the store had absolutely no right to claim them as their property. Just beca…

Totally correct, though I do think a contract was signed in the LEGO case you're referencing. So "common law 9/10ths" doesn't even come into play here because people signed stuff.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#144

Post by jason_oster »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #7
ragequittah wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Search engine AI summaries flat out lie and deceive people all the time. What was the alternative you were using that gave you 100% accurate information before? Search engines lied all the time as well. As did news sites and any other place you could go to for information. AI just makes it easier to get the information people were already consuming.

People always point this out like it's some kind of gotcha. "But things were wrong before, too!" But it wasn't ON PURPOSE. The INTENT, by the people serving the search, was for the information to be correct. Algorithms tried to reward correctness, people would curate information, etc. Sure, bad actors tried to game it. But since the intent was for it to be correct, search providers fought back. With AI, you're litera…

Between the elimination of the fairness doctrine, the rampant sensationalism (a phenomenon so common it has its own derogatory name: clickbait), the corporate ownership of media outlets, and the pervasiveness of advertising, I can't imagine how you got the idea that information sources were ever a public good. Let alone conflated the purpose of the intent. The intent has been to make money by any means necessary.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#145

Post by Henchman21 »

Varelion wrote: post #37

I, and everyone in my social circle, go out of our way to not touch anything that was had AI significantly involved in the creation process. Hypocritically, I use AI a lot at work. I see it as using it a lot more than I am paying for, to actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line. I have a coworker that does the same. His logic was sound -- when something is heavily subsidized, abuse it.

Severance

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#146

Post by Henchman21 »

jtfrench wrote: post #89

What happened to the early wave of IP lawsuits against the first wave of model makers? Did anything stick/make a difference? Did _any_ frontier model company retroactively-migrate to consent-based models?

As I understand it, the courts in the US rubber-stamped it as “transformative work” and allowed the theft of literally everything to stand, while establishing a legal precedent that everything they did was A-OK.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#147

Post by wyre »

altcognito wrote: post #77
wyre wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you okay? why do u need to be so patronizing? did you read tfa? they're obviously talking about the public's perception of LLM's, especially outside of the tech industry. "the idea of AI is fundamentally tainted" is not a confusing statement in reference to that.

Condescending, I was condescending, and I cut back on it some. I read the op and authors text as hope and cope that AI is held back by popular sentiment because they have some sort of personal fears about it. Computers are tools, and LLMs are a tool. Is it wrong to have issues about the way tech companies are abusing the system? Where were these people when other industries were being "disrupted" and breaking the law…

No, it's not wrong to have issues about the way tech companies abuse the system, and people have complained in the past about it, people have been complaining for years about Facebook, AirBnb, Uber disrupting and breaking the law, but their voices are powerless against their supporters and politicians that are in the pocket of these companies or their major investors.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#148

Post by recursive »

colechristensen wrote: post #139
recursive wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invite me to your house, and then serve me meat, and keep doing it, I probably won't come back. (I'm not actually vegetarian)

Ok but will you disown me if I mention cheeseburgers?

Probably not, but maybe if you say cheeseburgers are the future and you will be left behind.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#149

Post by happytoexplain »

jason_oster wrote: post #144
atomicnumber3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always point this out like it's some kind of gotcha. "But things were wrong before, too!" But it wasn't ON PURPOSE. The INTENT, by the people serving the search, was for the information to be correct. Algorithms tried to reward correctness, people would curate information, etc. Sure, bad actors tried to game it. But since the intent was for it to be correct, search providers fought back. With AI, you're litera…

Between the elimination of the fairness doctrine, the rampant sensationalism (a phenomenon so common it has its own derogatory name: clickbait), the corporate ownership of media outlets, and the pervasiveness of advertising, I can't imagine how you got the idea that information sources were ever a public good. Let alone conflated the purpose of the intent. The intent has been to make money by any means necessary.

This is fatalism via cherry-picking. It can't help anybody.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#150

Post by archagon »

comrade1234 wrote: post #138
danaris wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it will give you something in English. You don't actually know that it's a) asking them the questions you asked, rather than just something it hallucinated that seemed plausible in their language, or b) relaying to you a translation of their answers, rather than just something it hallucinated that seems plausible in English. Because LLMs will always, always, always hallucinate. They are not reliable, and this i…

I was on an academic NSA project 10+ years ago for extracting metaphors from text. It was necessary for translations - the metaphor "my lawyer is a shark" has completely different meanings in different cultures/languages. We started out using taxonomies/trees of words. The word "lawyer" is not an animal but the word "shark" is, so it's probably a metaphor. The NSA said that this was the wrong approach so we switched…

If there is nuance to the word “shark” in different languages, it’s very likely that LLMs will bias towards the mainstream, Western one. See: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/celesteheadlee_who-gets-cited...
Post reply on HN