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

Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#161

Post by Workaccount2 »

chmod600 wrote: post #136
somewhereoutth wrote: post #31

Depending on the outcome of the NYT case, I.P. may in fact be the death of (profitable) AI. One problem with AI (vs e.g. Google search) is that there is no mechanism for attribution. So it is impossible for rights holders to understand whether their works are being monetised (unlike, say, Spotify). Should NYT win, then either AI services will have to pay into a (very large) common pot for rights holders, which likely…

Are there other examples where the law crushed fundamental technological shifts? (Not just delayed briefly by starving investment or something.)

Stem cells

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#162

Post by cush »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #150
mlsu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that in these discussions, don't make the mistake of considering the artificial thing ("it's copyrightable/it's not copyrightable"). Rather, consider the real thing ("You will pay a licensing fee to use your GPU").

I'm still confused. Sure, a GPU is a real, physical thing. But licenses and fees are no more or less fiction than copyright. A license says "I have permission from the company makers to use this product", similar to how copyright is "you must get permission from me to use my product". But for the sake of this discussion: I don't think anyone can assume those permissions when using a tool to generate the base image. I…

> Copyright is not a real thing.

> - I think you're sowing the seeds to undermine your own arguments

> licensing fee...

It took them exactly one reply. New record

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#163

Post by BobaFloutist »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #76
willmadden wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pharmaceutical industry continues as a giant, blood sucking, vampire squid because of IP.

> The pharmaceutical industry continues as a giant, blood sucking, vampire squid because of IP. Let's be honest here. In order to get that way, they needed to stomp out and eradicate every trace of "evidence" that natural medicine was efficacious, because herbs, botanicals, and other natural substances can't be patented, can't be synthesized in factories, and can't be exploited for profit at megascale. If word ever l…

I can buy valerian root tea at multinational grocery store. The problem with supplements isn't that they're disenfranchised, and it's not even that they strictly don't work. It's that the huge businesses that make tons of money off of them have so aggressively resisted regulation based on effectiveness, or even contents, that you can't count on what you're buying not poisoning you, let alone helping.

And I'd love to see a natural replacement for insulin that doesn't kill people, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. So maybe pharmaceutical technology does a few things that natural remedies can't?

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#164

Post by BobaFloutist »

noitpmeder wrote: post #139
artninja1988 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that even the case? Who would read a small time writers fiction book through chatgpt? Most of the use cases I've seen for chatgpt, e.g. Translation, conversation, brainstorming, reformulation, summarization are wholly different from the dataset of books. I would say that the art generators have a stronger claim of competing with their work than llms

OpenAI/other is earning money (by selling subscriptions, ...) with a product that has been trained on and utilizes the protected work to produce their results. Personally I think the only way forward is for these AI companies to curate their dataset to only material that is legal for use. E.g. only GitHub repos with licenses stating such. Just because there is not a license doesn't mean it's free to hoover.

Or there could be a very cheap license for AI training that doesn't allow other uses, much like radio licenses for music.

They could buy a bunch of content created (or specifically licensed) for purpose, the artists get paid, and the artists that don't want their work to go into the pipeline get what they want too.

But too many people consider the development of AI to be such a moral imperative that no objections can possibly be relevant.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#165

Post by visarga »

mschuster91 wrote: post #34
ricardo81 wrote: post #18

It's been dead a while because of big tech. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter - they have no way of effectively managing IP and so you basically see people's stolen content and they monetise it, so TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle. Purely IMO, big tech normalised the taking of other people's content, and it's getting to the point where content creators (as in, ones that are capable of producing…

> TBF Napster and torrents are another and earlier angle. Napster didn't kill the music industry, torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a big screen experience. And so, actors, directors, VFX artists, cutters, riggers, lighting staff, costume/mask people, they all continue to have jobs. But now, with AI being already able to do very realistic photos, and in a few years lik…

> It is by definition incapable of trying something entirely new

Only if the AI doesn't see any usage. But when you start using it, you get AI+human generating things that can be outside its training scope. Humans can input novel ideas into the prompt or include new information. Then AI gets to retrain on the data generated with human in the loop and improve. There is a chance for humans and AI to explore new directions.

If you got a simple way to test, like the DeepMind geometry problem solving model, then AI models can improve on their own by doing massive search and validation. Kind of similar to the scientific method - formulate hypothesis, validate, observe outcomes, and repeat. Works for code too, or any AI output that can be "executed" and generate a validation signal.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#166

Post by falcolas »

chefandy wrote: post #85
falcolas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. It accounts for some 41% of the US' GDP, and a minimum of 47 million jobs. It's also growing at a fairly fast rate. That's too much money for anybody in charge to let die. They're much more likely to nuke AI.

> minimum of 47 million jobs What would you propose the US workforce did with some 47 million knowledge workers with suddenly useless skills if you removed the only widespread economic mechanism our society has to support them?

In my Star Trek-esque ideal world, post-scarcity sharing of the resources required to live.

Realistically, it's a part of the reason IP is "too big to fail". The fallout would effectively destroy the US.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#167

Post by ricardo81 »

Perhaps another angle is that the incoming and young workforce find it extremely convenient to take everyone else's work and make it their own.

It is nature after all, to spend the least amount of energy to attain a goal.

It would be convenient to accept it as par for the course.

The problem seems to be is that copyright laws are basically ignored nowadays.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#168

Post by reb »

silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

This is the right take — whatever your position on the future of this technology or its costs and benefits for humanity, the hypocrisy mentioned here shouldn't go unacknowledged.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#169

Post by BobaFloutist »

mindcandy wrote: post #153
teddyh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK. Now what? Do I owe Lisa Frank $10? No, because copyright law says that if you hand-paint an image (without AI), then as long as the images isn’t deemed (by a court, if necessary) to be a derivative work, then you, and nobody else, own the copyright. The word of God is not necessarily considered by the law. And even if the court takes the word of God as gospel, a 10% derivative work might not exceed the necessar…

Very good! Alternatively, if I created a large body of works that were 90% Lisa Frank and brought it to a large market distribution, making significant revenue, then she could sue me for damaging her market and her brand. Which she has done to others in the past and rightly won. Go Lisa Frank! But, if I used an AI tool in the process of making an image that came out 10% Lisa Frank, she wouldn't have a strong case aga…

Do you think it's reasonable for artists to want a way to forbid major AI corporations from training on their work? Because some people will stop producing/stop making available their work if they don't get access to a different way of doing so.

Much like how some artists are uncomfortable with making high-quality scans of their work available online, because it becomes prohibitively difficult to prevent people from selling prints. Forget the current legal framework, it seems fair to me to say "I don't want that happening to my art" when "that" is a corporation finding a way to monetize it. Even if the AI is using less than a pixel of your work, I think it's fair to ask that it not.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#170

Post by BobaFloutist »

suoduandao3 wrote: post #101
gumballindie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So essentially ai is profitable only if it resells stolen property. Almost as if it’s not intelligent and it only procedurally generates output. The more the better.

How is it 'stolen' if it was part of a public dataset? Is the argument that OpenAI was scraping data that should have been behind a paywall?

If I create a sculpture and put it on my front lawn, I think it's fair for me to complain if you scan it and start 3d printing and selling copies, even if I intended it to be in public view. Just because I want the public to be able to enjoy my version of something, doesn't mean I want people to feel free to ingest it and monetize it for personal profit.
Post reply on HN