Things are about to get worse for generative AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#281

Post by WhiteNoiz3 » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

As I understood it, the legal precedent for generative AI is the same one that allows google to scrape websites in order to index them for search for the common good. Google also can display cached versions of websites which is the original content of those sites. No one is going to say that google is copyright infringement just because it is showing content from other websites verbatim. So I think this is a weak argument. AI would be useless if we had to scrub all cultural references and popular IP's (even not so popular ones).

Personally, I think generative AI should be able to provide links to similar source material in the training data.. This would be the barest way to compensate those who have contributed to training the AI. I don't think generative AI is sustainable in the long term if it ends up killing all the websites/artists that created the original material. Plus I think having sources adds a layer of transparency and aids users in understanding when content is hallucinated vs. not. People should be able to opt out of having their content used for training and be able to confirm that it has been removed for future iterations. Let's be honest that AI companies are just trying to avoid lawsuits by keeping it secret. These are areas where I think regulation can help rather than worrying about doomsday scenarios.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#282

Post by yterdy » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

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.

In that case, the person legally liable for publishing the material is sued for infringement of the work. You don't send someone to jail because they're simply capable of infringing; they have to actually do it, and you have to actually show the specific work whose copyright was infringed upon.

You can also get into the weeds of what's copyright-able (ask Donald Faison about his Poison dance). If you ask for C-3PO and you get C-3PO as he appears in Star Wars promotional material, that seems cut and dry. What if you ask for a "golden robot"? What if you get a robot that looks like C-3PO but with a triangular torso symbol instead of his circular one? What's parody, what's fair use?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#283

Post by roenxi » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

Based on the rate of progress; I think this makes little difference to AI progress in the medium-long term.

At the moment, we don't have hardware that can do what humans do (process video feed from eyeballs and build up a world model). I imagine that we'll cross that barrier cheaply in the coming decades, at which point copyright becomes moot. AIs will be able to develop their own styles and world understanding from scratch, then generate original work.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#284

Post by jncfhnb » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

Agreed. Fortunately, AI does not have “own works”

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#285

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #207

sensanaty wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child isn't a computer program, and no amount of anthropomorphizing will ever make them so. Especially ChatGPT and other LLMs, they're not even close to being AGI or an "intelligent entity" as you put it, despite what all the AI-bro hype and marketing would like everyone else to believe.

> they're not even close to being AGI Only because all three letters of the initialism mean different things to different people. Existing LLMs won't do everything, but bluntly: good, we're not ready for a world where there is an AI that can do everything for $1-60/million words[0], and we need to get ready for that world before we find ourselves living in it. ChatGPT-3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, but it can still do…

[deleted]

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#286

Post by koliber » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

The responsibility for ensuring that copyrights were not violated fall on the person publishing the work. Whether they drew something themselves, hired an apprentice artists with no legal training to draw something, took a photograph of something, or used AI to create an image should not matter.

Why does anyone assume that ChatGPT or other tools would NOT produce previously-copyrighted content?

I can see a naive assumption that since it is “generated” it’s original. However that assumption falls apart as soon as you replace “ChatGPT” with “junior artist”. Tell them to draw a droid from a sci-fi movie, don’t mention anything else. Don’t say anything about copyrights. Don’t tell them that they have to be original. What would you expect them to produce?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#287

Post by whywhywhywhy » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

WhiteNoiz3 wrote: post #281

As I understood it, the legal precedent for generative AI is the same one that allows google to scrape websites in order to index them for search for the common good. Google also can display cached versions of websites which is the original content of those sites. No one is going to say that google is copyright infringement just because it is showing content from other websites verbatim. So I think this is a weak arg…

> No one is going to say that google is copyright infringement just because it is showing content from other websites verbatim

Journalists [1] and Getty Images [2] did in the past

[1]: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/07/14/025216/web-caching-g... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/27/getty-ima...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#288

Post by AlphaWeaver » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:27 PM UTC

WhiteNoiz3 wrote: post #281

As I understood it, the legal precedent for generative AI is the same one that allows google to scrape websites in order to index them for search for the common good. Google also can display cached versions of websites which is the original content of those sites. No one is going to say that google is copyright infringement just because it is showing content from other websites verbatim. So I think this is a weak arg…

No legal precedent has been set as of yet. The "precedent" you describe is the argument AI companies have been using (that training their models on information available on the Internet should be considered "fair use") but whether AI training actually satisfies the four-factor test for fair use remains to be seen.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#289

Post by 4bpp » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:27 PM UTC

AlienRobot wrote: post #163

4bpp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly am I stealing if I don't take the deal, walk away and then enjoy an AI-generated artwork that just so happens to resemble the thing closely instead? I'd think that stealing requires taking something away from someone, regardless of how hard certain industries try to gaslight me into expanding the definition to protect their business model.

Stop trying to gaslight yourself into thinking what you are doing isn't morally wrong. If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allo…

In what sense would I be running away with something? The original thing is still there, to the extent you can talk about data being somewhere.

I don't think I need to "gaslight myself" into anything; as far as I can tell, making a copy has not ever felt morally wrong to me.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#290

Post by leereeves » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 2:28 PM UTC

pama wrote: post #263

leereeves wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those sources describe any actions "gutting copyright law". They just say that officials met to discuss the issues.

I will update my language that mimicked the original comment. However it is not simple discussion. Here is a snippet related to Japan’s law, updated from ca 2018 with AI systems in mind, and clarified recently. I personally find it totally reasonable and support it. “The use of copyrighted products or materials to train generative AI models would be prima facie copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, as it is…

And it goes on to say "unless such use of copyrighted works unreasonably prejudices the interests of the copyright owner, in light of the nature or purpose of the work or the circumstances of its exploitation in Japan."

Which suggests that when AI art threatens commercial interests, the protection offered by 30-4 can disappear.

To me it sounds like they tried to please everyone and left the hard decisions about conflicting interests to the courts (in particular the courts will have to decide what "unreasonably" means).