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

431–440 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#431

Post by marckrn »

kranke155 wrote: post #362
marckrn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's advocate for robust protections and support systems for artists, ensuring they can secure a sustainable and comfortable livelihood from their creative work. Once they hit the tipping point of broad cultural absorbtion (think Banksy) AND/OR raking in absurd amounts of cash, move their IP into the public domain more aggressively (think Disney, NYT, etc.). How exactly this would work should be debated. They'd stil…

wow and incredible amount of things need to go right for artists to do well in your world ?

I too would love to earn a living by pursuing my hobbies. Too bad, I'm not in the 0,001-0,1%

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#432

Post by Zambyte »

madamelic wrote: post #329
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.

Copyright should be the problem of the person using the works and not the problem of the AI generating it. Unless Nintendo plans on busting down the doors of every person who tries to draw Mario or preventing little Timmy from making a parody of Coca-Cola, making it where AI cannot generated copyrighted works is insane imo. Those brands should be proud to be such a big part of the cultural fabric that it is difficult…

Copyright shouldn't be a problem for anyone. It's simply a bogus idea that artificial scarcity of information is a benefit to society.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#433

Post by ben_w »

edgyquant wrote: post #427
ben_w wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, all of biology and physics then. If souls exist, they have no mass, and have a weird way of being repeatably disrupted in consistent ways by damage to certain parts of the brain or specific chemicals. Just because consciousness is a mystery today, doesn't mean we get to stop and say it will be so forever more. Heck, the problem still fundamentally exists regardless of if you're atheist, monotheist, polytheist, or…

You missed the entire point. Physics and biology exist to help humans understand the material universe. Anything supposing that humans aren’t actually intelligent or conscious or whatever, or lack agency, is wrong since all of physics and biology are an offshoot of that agency meant to enrich it.

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying you're wrong. There's a difference.

Also:

> Anything supposing that humans aren’t actually intelligent or conscious or whatever

Doesn't really match what I was writing about: if it turns out that a thing which is "just a pattern recognizer" can in fact be "intelligent or conscious or whatever", it's up to us if we see intelligence or consciousness or whatever in the pattern recognisers that we build, or if we ourselves descend into solipsism and/or nihilism.

Or if we take the traditional path of sticking our fingers in our ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" by way of managing cognitive dissonance. This is a very popular response which should not be underestimated.

But the laws of physics are quite clear, that a whole bunch of linear equations (quantum field theory) gets us chemistry, which gets us biology, etc., and the only place in all this for the feeling of existence that we have is emergent properties. Those emergent properties may, or may not, be present in other systems, but we don't know because we're really bad at characterising how emergent properties… emerge.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#434

Post by falcor84 »

ausbah wrote: post #323
_xnmw wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying this is a fait accompli. Like many great innovations in tech, break the law because the law is silly; remember when Uber and AirBnB were illegal in most major cities and achieved market dominance anyway? I say, good riddance. I never believed in any such thing as "intellectual property" anyway, I say, get rid of it all, patents, copyright, and the whole pile of imaginary "rights". More than half the…

this comment has already aged poorly because cities are starting to push airbnbs out and taxi usage is at least somewhat up

> taxi usage is at least somewhat up

When's the last time you phoned an operator to book a taxi? If taxis are doing better, it's only because they learned from Uber (and the likes) what the job-to-be-done actually is.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#435

Post by madamelic »

sensanaty wrote: post #404
gaganyaan wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI

By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that. And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.

> And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.

This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need except for illegal purposes!")

In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden).

The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities.

They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#437

Post by stale2002 »

sensanaty wrote: post #394
stale2002 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.

Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely d…

> Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art

In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art?

No, I don't think that's the case.

Instead it is widespread. It is everywhere.

> depending on the scales in question

The scale argument supports me, not you.

This type of "infringement" is everywhere.

> reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else?

Even this is common. The online independent artist commissions market is full of people doing commercial fan art commissions.

Thinking about this even more, I am now wondering if "infringing" works might actually be a majority of the online/independent commissions market. Maybe.

And yet, nobody cares.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#438

Post by regularfry »

madamelic wrote: post #333
ncruces wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 purpose…

OpenAI might not want to shield all their customers from liability, but that is exactly what GitHub have done with Copilot. It's not a hypothetical, it's being done today.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#439

Post by pennomi »

Spivak wrote: post #420
j_maffe wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really eloquent way of saying "It's already happening, so give up on it." I'm sure it works out great for taking action and solving problems.

It's already happening and most people like having AI more than the DMCA. Selling people on the idea that ML training is piracy to people who on average pirate content with no moral quandary will go nowhere.

Exactly. People don’t like the DMCA at all. People would be happier in a world with very few IP restrictions at all.

But businesses do like it, and profits are what drive these legal decisions. This will always be the case as long as money is more important than humans in politics.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#440

Post by stale2002 »

RandomLensman wrote: post #418
stale2002 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.

It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.

Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own.

Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.

Post reply on HN