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

AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

axelk.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#261

Post by CamperBob2 »

LatencyKills wrote: post #157
IcyWindows wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?

> I'm trained on protected works. That someone, at some point, paid for. I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. I'm not anti-AI. I'd just like to see companies play by the rules everyone else has to follow.

I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either.

You're right, it's an unjust situation. And you may note that no one else besides the AI companies has made any progress at all towards changing it.

Copyright will soon die, having outlived its usefulness to society. Whether the knife is held by someone named Stallman or someone named Altman is of little consequence.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#262

Post by malfist »

hparadiz wrote: post #242
matt_kantor wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, don't let pesky discussions about ethics get in the way of building cool stuff. I'm working on paving over the Amazon rainforest so I can build the world's largest roller coaster, but for some reason people keep trying to talk me out of it. Good thing I have this bucket of sand to put my head in so I can tune them out.

You assume that I think using language models is unethical. I do not agree that it is. Now what?

"No u" isn't a valid counter argument. Arguer made no assumption about your view of the ethics of LLMs.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#263

Post by Salgat »

SoftTalker wrote: post #254
storus wrote: post #169

This is really not so clear cut as "fair use" might cover 99% of all data scrapping; you are not reproducing the originals just use them to estimate probabilistic distribution of tokens in pre-training. You are never going to get the exact book word-for-word using LLMs.

When I was in school, writing "in my own words" was never an excuse to not cite a source. It was actually something that took me a little while to understand, it's the source of the information that needs to be cited, and that's not limited to literal quotations of someone else's writing.

That's more an argument for why you can't just use LLMs as a source of truth. Conveniently, LLMs like ChatGPT do often cite their sources, especially if you prompt them to.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#264

Post by hajile »

kibwen wrote: post #238
motbus3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a year ago OpenAI crawled and go DDOS level the company I work. Even despite the robots.txt not allowing it, and despite some recaptcha we could assemble in time. We found our data in the outputs of their models but who can do anything about it...

> We found our data in the outputs of their models but who can do anything about it... If the crawlers refuse to voluntarily respect your robots.txt, then you are well within your rights to poison their data.

robots.txt seems like it should be a legally-binding terms of service which would make them outright copyright infringing.

Sue for $180,000 per infringement which should be calculated for each illegal API call.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#265

Post by enraged_camel »

deaton wrote: post #234
tancop wrote: post #171

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 is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.

>> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things.

You do realize people created and shared things long before copyright became a thing, right?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#266

Post by jayd16 »

hparadiz wrote: post #178
jayd16 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where was the coolness inflection point?

In the past three months I've shipped more code than I have in years. New php extension https://github.com/hparadiz/ext-gnu-grep A Demo showing how to stream webrtc to KDE Wayland overlay. https://github.com/hparadiz/camera-notif A fun little tool that captures stdout/stderr on any running process. https://github.com/hparadiz/bpf_write_monitor Then I upgraded my 10 year old hand written framework to a new version tha…

Task manager seems fun. In your screenshot, are your two task manager instances using a GB of ram?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#267

Post by vb-8448 »

rigonkulous wrote: post #108
vb-8448 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We built it, because we as humans intrinsically know that information should be free I don't know if this statement is more stupid or naive ..

I could say the same of your position, honestly. Stupid, naive - or maybe just plain ignorant. If humans didn't want information to be free, there wouldn't be so much free information. Or did you not notice?

You are confusing "slop" with "information", there is so much slop because it costs nearly 0 to be produced, but there's far less "information" than you are thinking.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#268

Post by saghm »

dmoose wrote: post #123
saghm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did the last original thought happen then? Clearly thoughts must have been original at some point, or there wouldn't be any at all

When did the first homo sapiens exist? Ideas like species evolve. Saying there are no original ideas seems to me an attempt to glibly capture something quite fundamental.

I don't disagree with your premise, but I'd argue that saying "there are no original ideas" in the context of a discussion of plagiarism is needlessly reductive. Even though I think I mostly agree with the author here, I think there are legitimate counterarguments that can be made; equating all of the ways someone can cite or build upon an idea with copying something word-for-word and claiming it's your own is not one of them though.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#269

Post by rkozik1989 »

storus wrote: post #169

This is really not so clear cut as "fair use" might cover 99% of all data scrapping; you are not reproducing the originals just use them to estimate probabilistic distribution of tokens in pre-training. You are never going to get the exact book word-for-word using LLMs.

Come up with obscure topic that has few relevant results, post about to Reddit on your profile page, wait a few hours and then query Gemini/ChatGPT about that exact thing and tell me you still feel this way.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#270

Post by fisheuler »

deaton wrote: post #30

"Steal an apple and you're a thief. Steal a kingdom and you're a statesman." - Literal Disney villain

Zhuang Zhou(BC 369-BC 286) have said the similar things "窃钩者诛,窃国者侯" This phrase comes from the chapter Ransacking Coffers (Qu Qie, 胠箧) in the Daoist text Zhuangzi (4th century BC).
Post reply on HN