Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response • Hacker News Board

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#191

Post by wizzwizz4 » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 9:16 PM UTC

throwawaysleep wrote: post #180

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I constantly look at how much RAM other people's software uses. I have to work hard to keep it down, otherwise my computer hangs. I would appreciate if software authors cared a bit more.

But will you pay for it? Appreciation isn't very valuable.

Most of the worst software is produced by organisations with plenty of resources, who place themselves as gatekeepers to coerce me into using their awful software. (I have no idea what they get out of this, in most cases.) This means I have to, eventually, choose between "having a job" and "not buying a new computer". Either choice leaves me with less money to give to those who write software I appreciate.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#192

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 9:26 PM UTC

its_ethan wrote: post #150

falcolas wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing missing from this analysis is how the profit-seeking platforms for AI were directly created from the works of the passionate - something not seen when the loom (or machining tools, etc) was created. Most hobby artists see it as stealing, even if the laws may not agree. And yes, even a hobbiest has the right to make money off their work.

I don't disagree that this is part of what makes this a particularly tangled situation, but it's also true that the loom/ machining tools were created by essentially copying the methods and styles that their non-automated artisans were using. I won't comment on any of the potential legal differences between AI being trained on an artists work without their knowledge versus Jacquard studying hand-made clothmaking tech…

Related: so much of our technology, including all electronic devices, were built on top of R&D done by passionate researchers who weren't working with profits in mind. How much are all the tech giants paying to the estates of Feynman, Dirac, or Maxwell? None. And nobody argues they should.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#193

Post by hpen » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 9:28 PM UTC

rickydroll wrote: post #182

hpen wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jump to conclusions in you comment by saying "rent is extracted" and "monopoly". Copyright doesn't necessarily mean "monopoly".

yes it does.. see: https://rufuspollock.com/2011/01/31/copyright-is-a-monopoly-...

Ha if apple is exlcusively the seller of iPhones, does that make them a monopoly? No because you can buy other phones. And you can buy other songs. No the analogy about rival goods is not a good analogy.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#194

Post by hpen » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 9:29 PM UTC

rickydroll wrote: post #184

hpen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it rent seeking if the author owns those rights?

yes. let me google that for you. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/re...

Your own definition "When an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without benefiting society". That doesn't sound like music or copyright

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#195

Post by Balgair » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 10:33 PM UTC

Nicksil wrote: post #22

voidfunc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most artists, like most programmers are working in a commercial capacity. I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. Do art for the sake of art on your own time. But expecting companies to not embrace AI to do their jobs is foolish just like it's foolish to think corporate programmers will be a thing at some point in the future.

>Most artists [...] are working in a commercial capacity. How do we know this?

Yeah, for real! I'd say the exact opposite. Most artists have day jobs.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#196

Post by lolinder » Tue, Jul 09, 2024, 11:49 PM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #179

lolinder wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc.) already available than I could ever hope to get through in my lifetime. As someone who has a very specific taste in video games, I beg to differ. If you happen to exist in the space targeted by AAA or if you don't have strong preferences for what you get out of an indie game the status quo is fine, but it's been a whi…

Right now automation allows neither of those things. The best you're going to get is existing games reskinned with AI slop assets---the new shovelware. In some hypothetical future world where GenAI content really is as novel and worthwhile as content made by humans, this will be a different conversation. Until then, I doubt it's going to satisfy even the tiny minority of people who literally want to play the same gam…

To be clear, I'm not envisioning complete automation—I'm envisioning a human game designer using these tools to make building out an idea much faster and with lower risk.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#197

Post by buttercraft » Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 5:03 AM UTC

throwawaysleep wrote: post #37

buttercraft wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. This viewpoint is what fucked up the world.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

> decrying machinery that made cloth

You can be passionate about this advancement without placing profits first.

> Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made...

Again, you can do this with passion and without placing profit first

> There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for dirt cheap

I disagree strongly here. Art has value in large part because most people cannot produce it. I like stories, but not everyone has a good story to tell. When the story is AI-generated, there isn't a consciousness behind it to give it the passion required for good stories.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#198

Post by jokethrowaway » Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 6:32 AM UTC

rewgs wrote: post #90

webdood90 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism - love it or leave it!

Except you can't leave it. Ain't it grand?

You can, just stop trading with other humans. Go to some unclaimed patch of land or sea without governments that can pretend they own it.

Go to North Korea if you want a country with little capitalism.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#199

Post by jokethrowaway » Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 6:37 AM UTC

hpen wrote: post #155

rickydroll wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The artists complaining about this have built their careers and revenue streams on the backs of thousands of years of artistic creation. Where's the compensation for those earlier artists? Did you get their permission to use their content to train yourself? In almost every creative field, you learn by example. You watch what the Masters have done before you. You know their techniques, tools, and ways of expressing th…

Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.

If you are an artist, copyright protections stop you from reproducing work, not from looking at it

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#200

Post by exsomet » Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 6:40 AM UTC

> Artists would much rather have an AI that actually helps with grunt chores, such as writing invoices, or helping with taxes in order to focus more on fulfilling creative tasks.

As wild as it may seem, there are people who love accounting and tax work for the mental stimulation it gives them to find those little places to save money (I am not one of them, but I know several). So at some point the argument breaks down into “don’t automate MY job, just somebody else’s that I value less”.

This concept that there are things we like/are good at and things we dislike/suck at is why specialization and trade exists. AI breaks that model in ways that most people (in this case, the author) don’t consider or understand.