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

Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

thebookseller.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#31

Post by kranke155 »

polotics wrote: post #30
kranke155 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that copyright law is woefully unprepared, and that LLMs have become useful enough it will be difficult if not impossible to stop their development. > Page Rank is a big ol' matrix multiplication, and it spits out quotes verbatim. That makes no sense. Google Books was blocked exactly because it was reproducing enough material to be infringing. Google search usually does not copy enough material that it might…

I disagree: I think copyright law is wholly prepared. If some thing produces a copy of copyrighted material, without explicit approval of the copyright owner, then it is infringing on the copyright. Where is the unprepared?

It's unprepared for the fact that you can now build thinking machines using these new techniques, and that governments will be reluctant to regulate them if they think it will give them issues in an AI race against strategic opponents.

Of course it's doubtful that image and video gen AI are strategically important, but I trust the AI lobby to make sure that governments won't make that distinction.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#32

Post by pnut »

polotics wrote: post #30
kranke155 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that copyright law is woefully unprepared, and that LLMs have become useful enough it will be difficult if not impossible to stop their development. > Page Rank is a big ol' matrix multiplication, and it spits out quotes verbatim. That makes no sense. Google Books was blocked exactly because it was reproducing enough material to be infringing. Google search usually does not copy enough material that it might…

I disagree: I think copyright law is wholly prepared. If some thing produces a copy of copyrighted material, without explicit approval of the copyright owner, then it is infringing on the copyright. Where is the unprepared?

Looking at copyright law through the lens of "land grabbing output token sequences" diminishes its perception of long term viability to me.

Generative computation is becoming reproducible at scale.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#33

Post by kranke155 »

portaouflop wrote: post #20
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Anything that Penguin Random House perceives as a threat is good and right for me.

That's an simplification of the world that might help you think, but it's actually harmful in understanding what's really going on.

Everything is nuanced. So if you refuse to understand nuance you don’t understand the world.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#34

Post by kranke155 »

Always happy to see the copyright experts in HN jumping out of the woodwork whenever a thread like this shows up.

Whether AI can use copyrighted material as training data is legally undetermined. There's only an argument that it could be. It will be decided in court.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#35

Post by polotics »

kranke155 wrote: post #31
polotics wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree: I think copyright law is wholly prepared. If some thing produces a copy of copyrighted material, without explicit approval of the copyright owner, then it is infringing on the copyright. Where is the unprepared?

It's unprepared for the fact that you can now build thinking machines using these new techniques, and that governments will be reluctant to regulate them if they think it will give them issues in an AI race against strategic opponents. Of course it's doubtful that image and video gen AI are strategically important, but I trust the AI lobby to make sure that governments won't make that distinction.

You wrote "thinking machines"? seriously? You do know that attention is all you need, right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need) Having a Generative Pretrained Transformer regurgitate pattern-matched input into mostly logical-appearing output does not make a thinking machine! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-trained_transfo...)

case in point, look at this, and think:

""" It's true that relying solely on attention mechanisms, while groundbreaking, doesn't equate to genuine thinking. These models, impressive as they are, essentially excel at sophisticated mimicry. They learn to identify patterns in vast amounts of data and reproduce them in a way that often seems intelligent. However, they lack true understanding, consciousness, or the ability to form original thoughts and intentions.

The danger lies in anthropomorphizing these systems. We marvel at their ability to generate human-like text, translate languages, and even write different kinds of creative content, and we may be tempted to ascribe human-like qualities to them. But it's crucial to remember that beneath the surface lies a complex algorithm, not a conscious mind.

While the "Attention is All You Need" paper revolutionized the field of natural language processing, it's important to maintain a critical perspective and acknowledge the limitations of current AI technology. The quest for true artificial intelligence, a machine capable of independent thought and understanding, remains an ongoing challenge. """

Maybe you were able to spot a pattern, no?

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#36

Post by portaouflop »

paganel wrote: post #19
portaouflop wrote: post #16

Penguin Random House is a predatory corrupt business that the world would be much better off without. If AI means businesses like this shut down I need more „AI“

Honest question, what's "predatory corrupt" about their business? I have some of their paperbacks on my bookshelves and they've been a pretty decent value for money thing.

Look into Penguin Random house antitrust trial - they’re monopolising culture - which is corrupt and their business practices are predatory

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#37

Post by portaouflop »

kranke155 wrote: post #33
portaouflop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that Penguin Random House perceives as a threat is good and right for me.

That's an simplification of the world that might help you think, but it's actually harmful in understanding what's really going on. Everything is nuanced. So if you refuse to understand nuance you don’t understand the world.

Of course everything is nuanced - but the goal here is not to understand Penguin Random House.

It is to make sure that organisations like it that stifle and monopolise culture don’t keep getting more power.

If AI is the way to do that so be it.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#38

Post by kranke155 »

polotics wrote: post #35
kranke155 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unprepared for the fact that you can now build thinking machines using these new techniques, and that governments will be reluctant to regulate them if they think it will give them issues in an AI race against strategic opponents. Of course it's doubtful that image and video gen AI are strategically important, but I trust the AI lobby to make sure that governments won't make that distinction.

You wrote "thinking machines"? seriously? You do know that attention is all you need, right? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need ) Having a Generative Pretrained Transformer regurgitate pattern-matched input into mostly logical-appearing output does not make a thinking machine! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-trained_transfo... ) case in point, look at this, and think: """ It's tr…

I can spot a pattern that people who think AI should be able to violate copyright often anthropomorphize it as a silly defense.

If you mean what I wrote, it's irrelevant what you call them. If governments think there is an AI race that they will lose if they enforce copyright, they won't enforce copyright.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#39

Post by artninja1988 »

kranke155 wrote: post #34

Always happy to see the copyright experts in HN jumping out of the woodwork whenever a thread like this shows up. Whether AI can use copyrighted material as training data is legally undetermined. There's only an argument that it could be. It will be decided in court.

That's a funny post, since your other reply in this thread is:

>Ridiculous. The copyright violation is in its use for training data. And then its doubled down by the user asking for copyrighted material and getting it verbatim.

>It's not complicated. It's only complicated because it might be in the way of some people making billions or trillions.

Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff

#40

Post by kranke155 »

artninja1988 wrote: post #39
kranke155 wrote: post #34

Always happy to see the copyright experts in HN jumping out of the woodwork whenever a thread like this shows up. Whether AI can use copyrighted material as training data is legally undetermined. There's only an argument that it could be. It will be decided in court.

That's a funny post, since your other reply in this thread is: >Ridiculous. The copyright violation is in its use for training data. And then its doubled down by the user asking for copyrighted material and getting it verbatim. >It's not complicated. It's only complicated because it might be in the way of some people making billions or trillions.

I was debating someone, not asserting that I know the answer.

They were speculating whether there could be a copyright violations vs for instance using a tape recorder or a video camera.

I made an example that yes if there is a copyright violation here it is, and that’s it’s not that different.

I could have pillowed my language differently sure but what’s the point. It’s clear in context.

Post reply on HN