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

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#151

Post by atleastoptimal »

spacechild1 wrote: post #114
atleastoptimal wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes of course, but why do you believe it's not fair use? The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative. LLM training I believe is transformative, as it is taking the data (as in a work of text, an image, video), and feeding it through the layers of a neural net to marginally update its weights. It is factoring each work into a very very small fraction of the model's…

> The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. Fair use is much more complex than you think.

Let’s say I created a robot that walked around the world and gathered data from its environment. On its way it heard 20 copyrighted songs, looked at 40 copyrighted works. Should I owe royalties to the creators of those 60 works if I were to sell my robot?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#152

Post by pibaker »

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.

> actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line

Considering that hyperscalers are effectively funded by hype, you can also make the argument that by using AI you are helping their business by adding one to their active user number and making their business look ever so slightly better to investors.

Not to say your original argument is wrong. Just want to point out that the economics of AI is a mysterious mess.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#153

Post by pibaker »

lbrito wrote: post #98
Drakexor wrote: post #18

Just a reminder that only the west hates AI. China has 87% of the populace viewing AI favorably. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/11/19/trust-in-ai-far...

Maybe because in China they have a functioning government that enacted laws protecting workers against AI job displacement, while in the west we have shithead CEOs screaming "AI is coming for your job, like it or not" and companies laying off thousands of people with AI washing. Just a wild guess

Very hard to believe that a government that stopped publishing unemployment data is the one to side with workers.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#155

Post by runarberg »

jorvi wrote: post #41
altcognito wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The idea of AI is fundamentally tainted" What does this even mean? You don't like machine learning? You don't like the letters AI? There's no coming back to what? Do you work in the tech industry?

"AI" to most laypeople means LLMs and imagegen. They have no clue that anyone with an iPhone has been using "AI" since iOS 15(?) when it got stuff like photo object selection, instant OCR and voice isolation.

AI is a terrible name anyway and I am glad people have stopped calling stuff like supervised learning, or Markov Chains AI. I think it is better if it just sticks to this awful technology of LLMs and imagegen and will be dropped everywhere else for a better term.

We can readopt Machine Learning for the other algorithms, which is significantly better, but still not without flaws. I hope we go further down and just say statistical inference, and if we want to be any more specific and just say which algorithm we are using (supervised learning, Markov Chains, Kalman filter, etc.)

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#156

Post by runarberg »

skybrian wrote: post #23

Maybe we could find common ground in hating the AI gold rush/arms race? If people weren't in such a huge hurry to build it out as fast as possible, maybe there would be more time to figure out how do things right? Seen from that perspective, adding friction (for example, not releasing Mythos widely and suspending Fable for a while) is not so bad. If the bubble collapsed then that would also give us more time.

No you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to push us to the edge and then hope we will forgive everything if you allow us one step away from the edge. It doesn’t work like that. We were pushed to the edge in a game we did not want to play. For that I get to hate you and your stupid games, and there is nothing you can change to fix that. Damage is done and you just have to live with it.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#157

Post by marknutter »

Ai is enabling millions of people to create actually valuable things they didn't have a chance in hell creating just a few years ago. And of course there's a an entire legion of self righteous tech elitists who want nothing more than this insanely enabling technology to be stigmatized along with anyone who dares use it.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#158

Post by atleastoptimal »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #108
atleastoptimal wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes of course, but why do you believe it's not fair use? The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative. LLM training I believe is transformative, as it is taking the data (as in a work of text, an image, video), and feeding it through the layers of a neural net to marginally update its weights. It is factoring each work into a very very small fraction of the model's…

> Now, AI models are capable of reproducing copyrighted works to a degree of high accuracy, especially if those works recur very frequently in the training data, but I believe that's a different issue I disagree. I think it is the exact issue. I think that treating it as a different issue is legal stickhandling that goes against the spirit of what fair use is intended to be, to get the outcome that the rich and power…

Extremely strict copyright laws were intended to give the rich and powerful the outcomes they want, allowing corporations to rich themselves on IP gatekeeping. Until the last couple years, it was firmly corporation and wealth aligned to be extremely litigious and offer little leeway for using copyrighted works.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#159

Post by HDThoreaun »

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?

NYT vs openAI is still on going. Anthropic had to pay $1.5 billion for pirating books but I dont think that case had anything about training which is why all the labs are going the google route and scanning the entire corpus of books

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#160

Post by clapthewind »

Henchman21 wrote: post #146
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.

Just because it didn't meet your preferred outcome does not mean it was rubberstamped. The truth is that it is transformative.
Post reply on HN