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

Things are about to get worse for generative AI

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#241

Post by pama »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #111
Intox wrote: post #12

Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.

> a few copyright holders By which you mean every copyright holder. > AGI in the near future Something that is purely speculative, undefined, and has been promised in the near future for 50+ years. I don't see copyright holders lying down for someone else's benefit and I don't see governments gutting copyright, contract law, and several other avenues of protection that copyright holders can deploy in the name of some…

Japan is already taking action regarding copyright law and the AI world is noticing:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/japanese-government-ide...

https://www.cliffordchance.com/insights/resources/blogs/talk...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#242

Post by numpad0 »

bnralt wrote: post #124
keiferski wrote: post #39

These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…

It seems like a somewhat dystopian thing to fix. Imagine a scenario where Photoshop would scan images you uploaded for copyright material and then refuse to work if it determined image contained any copyrighted material or characters (even if it was just a fan drawing you did). This reminds me of the early days of the internet where people wanted to remove free fanfiction for violations of copyright laws. Trying to a…

> the early days of the internet where people wanted to remove free fanfiction for violations of copyright laws

This is reinforcing my suspicion that there's gross misunderstanding between creator adjacents and non-creators: Takedowns on free fanfictions never stopped.

It's just many IP holders started incorporating fanfics/parodies as part of their advertisement strategies and started enforcing often unspoken guidelines. There is now a ecosystem or a mental co-dependence between IP holders and creators, and both sides are fine with it. So there be fan contents.

But free fan contents were never "legalized" in the content world, as some seem to assume.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#243

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

kranke155 wrote: post #234
kranke155 wrote: post #231

The generative AI rollout has taught me what happens when the interests of the many intersect with the destruction of the few. You get steamrolled for defending yourself while you overhear above applause to those who have robbed you of your future.

It makes no sense that one is not allowed to make and market a CG Mario movie, but suddenly if you use AI to launder the data it's suddenly ok.

I'm pretty sure if you tried to sell a CG Mario movie Nintendo would sue you into oblivion, and "the neural network did it" would not be considered a good defense by anybody, including the judge and jury.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#244

Post by 2716057 »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #167
squidbeak wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a child is instructed to read a copyrighted work at school, which later becomes a factor in his own derivative works, he won't be in breach of copyright. Why should other intelligent entities be prevented from reading copyrighted works and gaining whatever there is to gain from those works the way any human might?

If the child / author then regurgitates entire paragraphs or sections verbatim in his own works and someone notices, you bet there will be a plagiarism lawsuit coming his way.

Especially true if that child or its mother has a huge market capitalization, large profit margins, highly-paid employees and shareholders eager to reap some more $$.

If the public starts to see LLMs as highly sophisticated copyright laundromats it would most likely hamper further investment & development in that field.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#245

Post by pier25 »

CaptainFever wrote: post #113
rco8786 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is already salivating over the idea

The EU and many other countries already exempted training from copyright restrictions. The only condition EU added was opt-out, and even then it can be ignored if you're doing research. [1] [1] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainmen...

ChatGPT is not research, it's a commercial service.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#246

Post by heavyset_go »

rileymat2 wrote: post #214
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the child / author then regurgitates entire paragraphs or sections verbatim in his own works and someone notices, you bet there will be a plagiarism lawsuit coming his way.

Wouldn’t this be well handled by suing the person that prompted and distributed the results?

No, whoever operates the LLM service is liable for unauthorized modification, reproduction and distribution of copyrighted work to users.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#247

Post by ED_Radish »

Loughla wrote: post #156
sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.

>There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.

copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway

honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point

you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too*

I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money.

*(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#248

Post by redcobra762 »

This operates similarly to importing an image into Photoshop. You can do whatever you like with images privately, or with gen AI, but the game ends when you try to use those images commercially.

Not sure how this “gets worse” or better for anyone. The current state of things seems generally fine, and there’s a real possibility the courts see it that way too.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#249

Post by hhjinks »

foobazgt wrote: post #6
Baldbvrhunter wrote: post #2

I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…

But it's not like that. Examples of clearly infringing prompts in TFA were as vague as "animated plumber". Asking your session musician for something "melancholy" and having them pass off Stairway to Heaven as original would be unreasonable.

Game plumber, not animated plumber. There is only one game plumber of note. It's literally exactly as descriptive as just saying Nintendo's Mario.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#250

Post by redcobra762 »

foobazgt wrote: post #6
Baldbvrhunter wrote: post #2

I imagine the argument might be like this: I hire a session musician to play on my new single, paying him $100. I record the whole session. I ask him to play the opening to "Stairway to Heaven" and he does so. "Well, I can't use that as a sample without paying" "Ok play something like Jimmy Page" "Hmm, still sounds like Stairway to Heaven" "Ok, try and sound less like Stairway to Heaven but in that style" "Great, I'l…

But it's not like that. Examples of clearly infringing prompts in TFA were as vague as "animated plumber". Asking your session musician for something "melancholy" and having them pass off Stairway to Heaven as original would be unreasonable.

It’s not infringing just by existing, you would need to then go try to use it commercially for infringement to occur.

Arguably, the LLM generating the image isn’t infringement, you using it would be.

Post reply on HN