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

31–40 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#31

Post by Xeamek »

zarzavat wrote: post #19

This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.

The post shows many examples where the prompt explicitly avoids any mentions of copyrighted materials but the generated results includes them regardless.

Did you even read the post?

But also, the argument of 'user responsibility' doesn't hold up on its own regardless (imo).

If I make and sell a toy printer that can only ever produce 3 pictures, and all of them contains copyright materials, would you really say that it's fine and responsibility falls under the end user? And I could sell that printer without any issues?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#34

Post by anonzzzies »

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.

It’s one way of getting China to close the gap as they don’t care.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#35

Post by Uvix »

zarzavat wrote: post #19

This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.

What about when you prompt the model without the intention of creating something infringing, and still get those same characters out in the result?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#36

Post by 123yawaworht456 »

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…

using this analogy, copyright holders want to sue the guitarist for having listened to "Stairway to Heaven"

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#39

Post by keiferski »

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 anyone prompting for "video game plumber"?

1. The describe command can describe an image in Midjourney. I imagine other AI tools have similar features: https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/describe

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#40

Post by preommr »

We need clearer laws that only apply to Generative AI. Too many comparisons and parallels are being drawn to actual people. "Like what if someone learned how to draw by watching trademarked material, and then accidentally produced it" But these models aren't people and they exist in a category of their own.

I do think it's somewhat trademark infringement by these models, also that it should be allowed and that ultimate responsibility should be on the person using the images in a final work meant for consumption by the general public as stand alone media.

Post reply on HN