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

331–340 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#331

Post by ausbah »

clbrmbr wrote: post #147

Am I the only one believing that copyright has long outlived its usefulness? After all, copyright is not some natural law or mathematical consequence, but rather a social convention that made sense in the era of the printing press.

people still print stuff, now it’s just on the internet, podcasts, etc so I don’t see why copyright should change just because the mediums have. also marking out as a “societal convention so it must be useless” is also pretty silly when money, gender, and whole heap of other concepts are societal conventions but still useful

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#332

Post by jacobyoder »

sensanaty wrote: post #228
ben_w wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> ChatGPT-3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, but it can still do a better job of coding than a few of my coworkers demonstrated over the last 20 years. Whenever people say stuff like this I can't help but wonder what on earth kind of projects they work on. Even GPT4, while useful for things like reformatting or generating boilerplate code and stuff like that, it's still a far cry from any decent dev I've ever worked with,…

> Whenever people say stuff like this I can't help but wonder what on earth kind of projects they work on. Even GPT4, while useful for things like reformatting or generating boilerplate code and stuff like that, it's still a far cry from any decent dev I've ever worked with, especially if you're not using a popular language like JS or Python.

I mean this not overly sarcastically, but ... have you seen https://thedailywtf.com ? Between my own experiences, and that of some colleagues, I could probably put together at least a half-a-dozen WTF stories that would rival some of the best that site has to offer. There's enough really incompetent people in positions they shouldn't be in to the point that chatgpt - at this point - could realistically provide better output than more than a few of them.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#333

Post by madamelic »

ncruces wrote: post #293
andy99 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But if the child has that capability, it doesn't automatically make them a walking copyright violation. "Intelligence", even the current version of AI, entails knowing about stuff, including being able to recite. That doesn't mean intelligence's existence violates copyright. If a person used AI to make a copyright violating work, that's a different story, just like if they used their own innate intelligence to…

Taken to its conclusion, liability is then on everyone who decides to publish anything that ChatGPT “tells” them, because it might cross the threshold on plagiarism. Are the OpenAIs of the world ready to shield their customers from that liability? If it turns out that using ChatGPT to help you write your resumé opens you up to accusations of plagiarism, or DALL·E to create an image for your website opens you to copyr…

> Taken to its conclusion, liability is then on everyone who decides to publish anything that ChatGPT “tells” them

Yes. Just like reading anything else on the internet. An LLM is no different from typing "popular cola logo" into Google search and claiming you invented it. If I type "cola logo" into DALL-E and get a replica of Coca-Cola... that doesn't mean I created that logo and can exploit it for commercial purposes.

> Are the OpenAIs of the world ready to shield their customers from that liability?

Why would they? We aren't suing pen manufacturers because someone wrote something libelous using their pen. We aren't busting down the doors of Crayola because little Johnny used the crayons to draw Mario.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#334

Post by jncfhnb »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #325
jncfhnb wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You will have to define "own works". How can you measure how "owning" some work is?

AI can’t be a copyright owner. Ergo the violation is on the person using the tool.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#335

Post by golol »

elmomle wrote: post #316
golol wrote: post #313

How about this: Image generators should be treated like random google image search. They sample randomly from the distribution of publicly viewable images. Google does it exactly while Image generators do it in an interpolative way. Google images produced copyrighted works most of the time, an image generator only sometimes. Neither should be liable if someone sells a copyrighted work that was produced to someone els…

But when Google image search produces a result, the question of whether it is copyrighted is something I can generally figure out in a matter of seconds or minutes. This is not so for image generators.

But isn't that the users problem? Also with a smarter reverse image search you can detect an infringement with similar reliability as to using google images.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#336

Post by pixl97 »

ncruces wrote: post #293
andy99 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But if the child has that capability, it doesn't automatically make them a walking copyright violation. "Intelligence", even the current version of AI, entails knowing about stuff, including being able to recite. That doesn't mean intelligence's existence violates copyright. If a person used AI to make a copyright violating work, that's a different story, just like if they used their own innate intelligence to…

Taken to its conclusion, liability is then on everyone who decides to publish anything that ChatGPT “tells” them, because it might cross the threshold on plagiarism. Are the OpenAIs of the world ready to shield their customers from that liability? If it turns out that using ChatGPT to help you write your resumé opens you up to accusations of plagiarism, or DALL·E to create an image for your website opens you to copyr…

In a heartbeat. It's time for the old paradigms to die and new ones to be formed.

If ASI can exist I don't believe our the old methods of intellectual fortifications will continue to work in the future. Much like castle walls aren't used to protect against guided missiles.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#337

Post by madamelic »

pier25 wrote: post #233
rileymat2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't OpenAI distributing content in its apps?

This is an extremely dangerous precedent that I think you are purposefully trying to put forward.

It's a horrendously bad idea especially for startups to make it apps' faults for how users use their platform. It's only in the benefit of entrenched tech companies to make this precedent.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#338

Post by ChatGTP »

kranke155 wrote: post #225
marckrn wrote: post #77

I might be a bit idealistic, but I've always believed that the core purpose of art and publishing should be to influence culture and society, not just to make a heap of money. That's why I feel original work needs its protection, but it should enter the public domain much sooner to fuel creativity and inspiration. We should be thinking in terms of a few years for this transition, not decades.

So what do you suggest artists have for dinner.

don't worry ,when the singularity hits next year everything will be free.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#339

Post by f38zf5vdt »

Nebasuke wrote: post #320
injidup wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU cannot agree that the Do Not Track flag on web browsers is legally binding but big content should be able to create legally binding flags on their websites to avoid scraping of data? Seems odd!

I don't think that's a fair analogy. One forces 99% of websites to make a change, while the other is something that would need to be done by the big companies doing the scraping. A Do Not Track flag being legally binding would force small websites, e.g. a local restaurant website, to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand. A company that is mass scraping data for t…

The X-Robots-Tags header already exists as "noai" and "noimageai". Scraping software like img2dataset respects these by default.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#340

Post by cma »

Nebasuke wrote: post #320
injidup wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU cannot agree that the Do Not Track flag on web browsers is legally binding but big content should be able to create legally binding flags on their websites to avoid scraping of data? Seems odd!

I don't think that's a fair analogy. One forces 99% of websites to make a change, while the other is something that would need to be done by the big companies doing the scraping. A Do Not Track flag being legally binding would force small websites, e.g. a local restaurant website, to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand. A company that is mass scraping data for t…

I'm gonna guess it often isn't even their content but is user content they are protecting. So, sounds like a big subsidy/protection racket for Twitter or whatever to train on their users' public content but not let others.
Post reply on HN