191–200 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an original thought is in no way related to breaking copyright laws. I don't think we should "get over" the fact that modern SOTA models couldn't exist without being trained on protected works.
I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?
I don’t know if this author supports OSS but I’ll share this because HN generally is full of people with that mindset. It’s deeply ironic that if you forget about LLMs and look only at the outcome—-we’ve found a way to legally circumvent copyright and the siloing of coding knowledge, making it so you can build on top of (almost) the whole of human coding knowledge without needing to pay a rent or ask for permission—-…
The latter, i.e. corporate control of software, is exactly what copyleft licenses are trying to prevent. This is the very essence of the GPL.
The "license washing" of LLMs absolutely goes against the spirit of FOSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it could be positive in some distant future utopia. But the short-term impacts here and now are really, really bad. People are getting hurt (through water consumption, vibe-coded security disasters, IP theft, data center pollution, loss of job security and therefore healthcare in the US, LLM psychosis, inability to find reliable information, etc.) We're not actually obligated to sacrifice these people on the al…
We absolutely have negative cases - but these do not outweigh the positive cases. There is no distant utopia - right now, people are becoming extremely capable because of their personal use of AI - there is also a position on the other side of the curve, where people are becoming more incompetent because of AI. But guess what, it has always been so with technology - and we are only here and now because the positive u…
People were effectively copying websites (especially ecommerce tutorials) and beating the original authors at SEO decades before ChatGPT 2.
There are two issues the author raises (as I understand it): 1. People copying others' work, made much easier by AI. 2. AI companies effectively harvesting all the accessible information on an industrial scale and completely sidestepping any permissioning or licensing questions. I believe both of these are bad and saying "people copied each others' works before the advent of AI" is a poor cop out. It's tantamount to…
From a capitalistic standpoint, they are clearly in the wrong by basing their models on illegally torrented content. But it's hard to argue their usage isn't transformative.
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
This site is strange. I'm pretty sure there's lots of AI shilling happening on it. I don't think the opinions here are authentic, they seem to be opinions that the AI company CEOs would hold, not the disenfranchised 99%. I used to trust HN, I'm not so sure I can now.
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
Yeah, I think we are at the point where copyright doesn't exist anymore, at least for AI
Isn't plagiarism inherently unauthorized?