611–620 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can an artist be created without using copyrighted content? Raise a child without movies, books, songs or the internet, see how much they contribute to "popular culture".
There is liberally licensed content like creative commons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. That was the original purpose. It has since been coopted by people and corporations whose incentives are to make as much money as possible by monopolizing valuable intangible "property" for as long as they can. And the chief strategic move these people have made is to convince…
It's been a US-led project for the benefit of American corporations. If I was running the trade emergency room in any European state right now, I'd have "stop enforcing US copyright" up there next to "reciprocal tarrifs".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details, ClosedAI doesn't seem to be OK with it, because they are explicitly censoring characters of more popular IPs. Presumably as a fig leaf against accusations of theft.
If you define feeding of copyrighted material into a non-human learning machine as theft, then sure. Anything that mitigates legal consequences will be a fig leaf. The question is "should we define it as such?"
But because a computer, and not a human does it, they get to launder their responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. That was the original purpose. It has since been coopted by people and corporations whose incentives are to make as much money as possible by monopolizing valuable intangible "property" for as long as they can. And the chief strategic move these people have made is to convince…
It's been a US-led project for the benefit of American corporations. If I was running the trade emergency room in any European state right now, I'd have "stop enforcing US copyright" up there next to "reciprocal tarrifs".
Not sure if anyone is interested in this story, but I remember at the height of the PokemonGo craze I noticed there were no shirts for the different factions in the game, cant rememebr what they were called but something like Teamread or something. I setup an online shop to just to sell a red shirt with the word on it. The next day my whole shop was taken offline for potential copyright infringement. What I found sur…
Many years ago I tried to order a t-shirt with the postscript tiger on the front from Spreadshirt. It was removed on Copyright claims before I could order one item myself. After some back and forth they restored it for a day and let me buy one item for personal use. My point is: Doesn't have to be Sony, doesn't have to be a snitch - overzealous anticipatory obedience by the shop might have been enough.
I used Spreadshirt to print a panel from the Tintin comic on a T-shirt, and I had no problem ordering it (it shows Captain Haddock moving through the jungle, swatting away the mosquitoes harassing him, giving himself a big slap on the face, and saying, 'Take that, you filthy beasts!').
I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws. That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for t…
You are missing a bunch of edge cases, and the law is all about edge cases. An artist who works professionally has family members, family members who are dependent on them. If they pass young, become popular just before they pass and their extremely popular works are now public domain. Their family sees nothing from their work, that is absolutely being commercialized ( publishing and creation generally spawns two sep…
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…
People like what they already know. When they prompt something and get a realistic looking Indiana Jones, they're probably happy about it. To me, this article is further proof that LLMs are a form of lossy storage. People attribute special quality to the loss (the image isn't wrong, it's just got different "features" that got inserted) but at this point there's not a lot distinguishing a seed+prompt file+model from a…
To a viewer, a human-made work and an AI-generated one both amount to a series of stimuli that someone else made and you have no control over; and when people pay to see a movie, generally they don't do it with the intent to finance the movie company to make more movies -- they do it because they're offered the option to spend a couple hours watching something enjoyable. Who cares where it comes from -- if it reached us, it must be good, right?
The "special status" you speak of is due to AI's constrained ability to recombine familiar elements in novel ways. 64k MP3 artifacts aren't interesting to listen to; while a high-novelty experience such as learning a new culture or a new discipline isn't accessible (and also comes with expectations that passive consumption doesn't have.)
Either way, I wish the world gave people more interesting things to do with their brains than make a money, watch a movies, or some mix of the two with more steps. (But there isn't much of that left -- hence the concept of a "personal life" as reduced to breaking one's own and others' cognitive functioning then spending lifetimes routing around the damage. Positively fascinating /s)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, did anyone here read the prompt and not think “Indiana Jones”?
Is HN the whole world? Isn't an AI model supposed to be global, since it has ingested the whole Internet? How can you express, in term of AI training, ignoring the existence of something that's widely present in your training data set? if you ask the same question to a 18yo girl in rural Thailand, would she draw Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones? Maybe not. Or maybe she would. But IMO an AI model must be able to provide…
Maybe it would have some point if you are targetting users in a substantially different social context. In the case, you would design the model to be familiar with their tropes instead. So when they describe a character iconic in their culture, by a few distinguishing characteristics, it would produce that character for them. That's no different at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least patents only last 20 years as opposed to nearly over a century for copyright.
In practice it's often longer. Drug companies queue up minor tweaks to their formulas and can threaten to sue anyone even close to the new way, even carbon copies of the now expired patent. Few can afford to win a lawsuit. We need more courts and judges to speed the process, to make justice more accessible, and universal SLAPP protections to weed out frivolous abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm kind of concerned about is that these images will persist and will be reinforced by positive feedback. Meaning, an adventurous archeologist will be the same very image, forever. We're entering the epitome of dogmatic ages. (And it will be the same corporate images and narratives, over and over again.)
And it's worth considering that this issue isn't unique to image generation, either.