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

Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#41

Post by tokai »

karaterobot wrote: post #40

I'm the kind of creative whose job is threatened by AI, but if I'm being honest and cold-blooded, I'm not actually sure that I'd call what AI training does stealing—apart from any illicit acquisition of the data, that is. I'm open to being persuaded. I just have not read a really persuasive argument that when a model is trained, what it's doing is closer to stealing than it is to being influenced and then recapitulat…

It feels to me like you are the one arguing about something else. It doesn't matter if AI doesn't copy work wholesale or it can be viewed as how artists are inspired.

AI companies use work that they do not have the rights for, to construct their products.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#42

Post by popularrecluse »

tokai wrote: post #41
karaterobot wrote: post #40

I'm the kind of creative whose job is threatened by AI, but if I'm being honest and cold-blooded, I'm not actually sure that I'd call what AI training does stealing—apart from any illicit acquisition of the data, that is. I'm open to being persuaded. I just have not read a really persuasive argument that when a model is trained, what it's doing is closer to stealing than it is to being influenced and then recapitulat…

It feels to me like you are the one arguing about something else. It doesn't matter if AI doesn't copy work wholesale or it can be viewed as how artists are inspired. AI companies use work that they do not have the rights for, to construct their products.

You don't need rights to view a work and caption it. You can walk into a library or gallery today and take your own notes on everything in there.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#43

Post by barbazoo »

SonOfKyuss wrote: post #4

If your industry relies on stealing to exist, maybe it doesn’t deserve to live

Most industries do this basically by “stealing” from the environment without paying their fair share for dealing with the environmental damage they’re doing.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#44

Post by SonOfKyuss »

chrischen wrote: post #33
SonOfKyuss wrote: post #4

If your industry relies on stealing to exist, maybe it doesn’t deserve to live

That "industry" is everyone's industry if AI models that rely on public data is available to the public. Then everyone can benefit.

Your point would be kind of valid if the tools they build were free to use

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#45

Post by opan »

billy99k wrote: post #2

Funny how copyright infringement has made a come back in AI and it's somehow a bad thing. What happened to all of the pirates fighting for our right to not pay for anything?

I don't like AI and I don't like copyright, but if I had to pick, I would definitely prefer copyright die out as it has more of a personal impact on me and my interests than AI does. Emulators and game projects getting threatened and/or shut down is a real shame. It takes some of the magic out of the world of software when we have to worry about this stuff. I do tend to use free as in freedom software, but proprietary software still manages to have an unfortunate presence around me.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#46

Post by birn559 »

karaterobot wrote: post #40

I'm the kind of creative whose job is threatened by AI, but if I'm being honest and cold-blooded, I'm not actually sure that I'd call what AI training does stealing—apart from any illicit acquisition of the data, that is. I'm open to being persuaded. I just have not read a really persuasive argument that when a model is trained, what it's doing is closer to stealing than it is to being influenced and then recapitulat…

AIs are not creative, that's anthropomorphism. They use lossy compression to save training data. Later on, the compressed data is used to generate things that are potentially copyright violations (because they are very close to the original).

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#47

Post by birn559 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #36

Sincere question: Do we need new laws for this? If I use photoshop to create a straight reproduction of an artwork by someone else and monetize it, copyright law handles this. If I use AI to do the same, same deal? At no point did someone suggest suing Adobe for building photoshop for "enabling" people to recreate art and sell it. So what changed? The ease of use?

AI uses lossy compression of data to generate output that is potentially a copyright violation. Photoshop doesn't recommend a (mostly) straight reproduction of existing work, but an AI potentially does.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#48

Post by bediger4000 »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #8
KaisoEnt wrote: post #6

They tried to make this guy prime minister when I was a kid.

I voted for him! I actually agree with him on this though, AI is a bigger net benefit to humanity than some artists' IP.

We did not get to use a nuanced argument against punitive "Intellectual Property" enforcement 1995-2010. What's different now?

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#49

Post by pj_mukh »

birn559 wrote: post #46
karaterobot wrote: post #40

I'm the kind of creative whose job is threatened by AI, but if I'm being honest and cold-blooded, I'm not actually sure that I'd call what AI training does stealing—apart from any illicit acquisition of the data, that is. I'm open to being persuaded. I just have not read a really persuasive argument that when a model is trained, what it's doing is closer to stealing than it is to being influenced and then recapitulat…

AIs are not creative, that's anthropomorphism. They use lossy compression to save training data. Later on, the compressed data is used to generate things that are potentially copyright violations (because they are very close to the original).

I don’t understand, generating (and then monetizing) things that are copyright violations is already illegal.

What we’re taking about is suing the tool that could potentially be used to generate copyright violations. Which seems silly?

Steelmanning your argument a bit more: OpenAI is selling the fact that you could potentially generate copyrightable material as a subscription, because the artwork is somewhere in the compressed data?

Abstracting the underlying tech a bit: If we imagined a printer that could faithfully represent whatever you told it to and you told it to reproduce Da Vinci’s that you later sold as originals while others told it to reproduce original forms of art (successfully), who’s at fault here, you or the printer?

Seems obvious to me it’s the user of the printer, not the printer itself, even if the printermaker is making money.

Re: Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would 'kill' AI industry

#50

Post by pj_mukh »

birn559 wrote: post #47
pj_mukh wrote: post #36

Sincere question: Do we need new laws for this? If I use photoshop to create a straight reproduction of an artwork by someone else and monetize it, copyright law handles this. If I use AI to do the same, same deal? At no point did someone suggest suing Adobe for building photoshop for "enabling" people to recreate art and sell it. So what changed? The ease of use?

AI uses lossy compression of data to generate output that is potentially a copyright violation. Photoshop doesn't recommend a (mostly) straight reproduction of existing work, but an AI potentially does.

“Photoshop doesn't recommend”

Neither does OpenAI? What about an empty chat prompt “encourages” copyright abuse?

Post reply on HN