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

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#21

Post by foxglacier »

flenserboy wrote: post #19

the guardrails are probably going to end up being way too close together when the dust settles — imagine if something as simple as "young wizard" would be enough to trip the warnings. someone could be looking to do an image from Feist's early novels, or of their own work, & that will be verboten. it may turn out that we're facing the strongest copyright holders being able to limit everyone's legitimate use of these t…

Unless it can exclude the copyright outputs and provide something else instead of blocking the inputs. I'm sure there's AI that can check if a picture is close enough to something in their database of copyrighted characters built up from some kind of DMCA-like process of copyright holders submitting examples of their work to be blocked.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#23

Post by fxtentacle »

4ndrewl wrote: post #8
CamperBob2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. Sue whoever uses it commercially. If you insist on making it about the model, you will wreck something wonderful.

Ah, so don't use the outputs of an LLM commercially?

That, or get sued.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#24

Post by Electricniko »

IgorPartola wrote: post #18
chimpanzee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. It isn’t an independent human. It is a service paid for by customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user, the image has thus been used commercially. In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in order to infringe copyright. And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce…

If I pay you to tell me the plot of Indiana Jones, privately, because I don’t have time to watch it, and you agree, did you violate copyright laws? If you do it for free, is it different? If I ask a friend to draw me as Indiana Jones? Or pay an artist? In either case I just want that picture to put in my rec room, not to sell.

OpenAI is currently valued at $300 billion, and their product is largely based on copying the copyrighted works of others, who weren't paid by OpenAI. It's a bit (exponentially) different from a "me and you" example.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#25

Post by burnished »

Oooh those guardrails make me angry. I get why they are there (dont poke the bear) but it doesn't make me overlook the self serving hypocrisy involved.

Though I am also generally opposed to the notion of intellectual property whatsoever on the basis that it doesn't seem to serve its intended purpose and what good could be salvaged from its various systems can already be well represented with other existing legal concepts, i.e deceptive behaviors being prosecuted as forms of fraud.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#26

Post by fxtentacle »

timewizard wrote: post #10
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

And? What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should r…

>> "a photo image of an intergalactic hunter who comes to earth in search of big game." I can literally imagine hundreds of things that are true to this description but entirely distinct from "Predator." > used commercially Isn't that what these AI companies are doing? Charging you for access to this?

Does their ToS say anywhere that they will come to defend you if you get sued for using their images?

(Because proper stock agencies offer those kind of protections. If OpenAI doesn't, then don't use them as a replacement to a stock agency.)

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#27

Post by chimpanzee »

IgorPartola wrote: post #18
chimpanzee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP. It isn’t an independent human. It is a service paid for by customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user, the image has thus been used commercially. In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in order to infringe copyright. And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce…

If I pay you to tell me the plot of Indiana Jones, privately, because I don’t have time to watch it, and you agree, did you violate copyright laws? If you do it for free, is it different? If I ask a friend to draw me as Indiana Jones? Or pay an artist? In either case I just want that picture to put in my rec room, not to sell.

Summarization is generally not copyright infringement.

Private copying and transference, even once for a friend, is copyright infringement.

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but it is true nonetheless.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#28

Post by prerok »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #20
flenserboy wrote: post #19

the guardrails are probably going to end up being way too close together when the dust settles — imagine if something as simple as "young wizard" would be enough to trip the warnings. someone could be looking to do an image from Feist's early novels, or of their own work, & that will be verboten. it may turn out that we're facing the strongest copyright holders being able to limit everyone's legitimate use of these t…

I would expect "young wizard" to generate something similar to Harry Potter more than Pug, tbh

That's exactly what they meant.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#29

Post by IAmBroom »

jMyles wrote: post #15
timewizard wrote: post #9

> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to I completely disagree. It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do. How anyone expected novel outputs from this technology is beyond me. It's highly noticeable if you do a minimal analysis, but all modern "AI" tools are just copyright thiefs. They're just there to whitewash aw…

> It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do That's true of all the best artists ever. > They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content. That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is a "thief". To be a thie…

OK, you're plunging deep into the ethos of IP piracy, and staking your claim that "None exists." If that is deemed TRUE, then there's nothing to ever discuss about AI... or animated pornography where a well-known big-eared mouse bangs a Kryptonian orphan wearing a cape.

The reality of our current international laws, going back centuries, disagrees. And most artists disagree.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#30

Post by MgB2 »

Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input?

I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new.

In the end, other than for copyright-washing, why wouldn't I just use the original movie still/photo in the first place?

Post reply on HN