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

631–640 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#631

Post by WhiteNoiz3 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #588
drubio wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * I don't think generative AI is sustainable in the long term if it ends up killing all the websites/artists that created the original material. * This is the elephant in the room. Every tech wave has had its way of cajoling creators into investing time & money to make original material, then the rules changed. Google, promised reach and new markets for content, it worked. Then they introduced snippets, ads and who…

> Google, promised reach and new markets for content, it worked. Then they introduced snippets, ads and whole lot of other things to keep visitors on their freeway, while avoiding sending visitors to the original site. Afterward came bots that saturated search results with useless SEO barf that pushed content (original and duplicated) so far down that we're coming back to where we started. Content is increasingly unf…

I agree with this too.. AI is only going to exacerbate the signal to noise problem on the web.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#632

Post by noitpmeder »

lbotos wrote: post #153
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.

Copyright in its current form yes. But the concept and closer to the original (creators lifetime + x years or some such) seems still very valuable. Copyright is still the bedrock of how many tech software business actually can make money.

Which is why there are so many competing interests (in this thread, and elsewhere) trying to say it should be 100% legal to steal from those companies. They all want to profit unfairly off the work of others.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#633

Post by shkkmo »

syndacks wrote: post #593
ctoth wrote: post #470

Everybody just buying into the corporate narrative that anyone can actually own these sorts of things. Who truly owns the tales of Snow White and Cinderella? These stories didn't originate with Disney; they are part of a rich tapestry of folklore passed down through generations. Disney's success was partly built on adapting these existing narratives, which were once shared and reshaped by communities over centuries.…

Did you read the article? Who owns Mario? Nintendo owns Mario, full stop. Your argument completely eschews the legal system of which modern society depends on to function as effectively as it does. There’s a reason you can’t steal other people’s work.

Mario is a 30 year old culural touchstone that is well known by people who have never played a Nintendo game.

I don't see why we need to give Nintendo the exclusive right control the use of Mario for the next 65 years. That duration of control is absolutely not necessary for society to function.

Society would function just fine of the copyright on mario had expired two decades ago.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#634

Post by shkkmo »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #540
ledauphin wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but would they have liability if they submitted their "output" to a senior artist, who immediately shot it down as obviously infringing? Surely not. It's not illegal to draw Mario - just illegal to make money off your drawing. I think the real question is whether OpenAI should be allowed to charge for generating infringing content. Even though the unit cost of the Mario drawing is negligible, the sum total of their i…

you don't have to make money off it, you just can't publish it, except as a parody or commentary or possibly a tutorial on how to draw mario if the judge is having a good day but "making money = infringement" is folk wisdom. you could certainly say making money attracts attention and increases likelihood of legal action

Making money off it doesn't just draw more attention, it also makes a fair use defense harder. Non-commercial use isn't necessary or sufficent for fair use, but it does help.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#635

Post by fallingknife »

MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #533
fallingknife wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a picture of Darth Vader: https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/darth-vader-main_45... Please show me a prompt that reproduces it. Also to pass this test, it has to be just as easy as right clicking "download image" The images in the article are done in reverse. They find a prompt that shows a copyrighted character and then search for the matching image. That's not how piracy is done.

Woah this is really moving the goalposts and is pretty disingenuous. When I responded to your prompt about GPT being bad at reproducing copyrighted material with a counter example where it appears to in fact be good at it, you tell me that I must reproduce a specific image as easily as “clicking download image.” Not what I was arguing and you’re not going to win many arguments with anyone who is paying attending by c…

Because nobody wants generic random pieces of copyrighted material. They want a specific piece of copyrighted material and generative ai is terrible at producing that. It's you who is being intentionally obtuse in pretending not to know the actual goal of copyright infringement.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#636

Post by koliber »

jawngee wrote: post #291
koliber wrote: post #286

The responsibility for ensuring that copyrights were not violated fall on the person publishing the work. Whether they drew something themselves, hired an apprentice artists with no legal training to draw something, took a photograph of something, or used AI to create an image should not matter. Why does anyone assume that ChatGPT or other tools would NOT produce previously-copyrighted content? I can see a naive assu…

Your argument is nonsense. The junior artist in your hypothetical would have as much liability, if not more.

I’m no lawyer but I don’t think an employee has much legal responsibility. At worst, they can get fired if they keep producing work that infringes on someone’s copyright.

Going with this line of reasoning, if a company uses ChatGPT to generate work, and it produces copyrighted work, the company can stop using ChatGPT.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#637

Post by noitpmeder »

Eridrus wrote: post #15
CTmystery wrote: post #8

> My guess is that none of this can easily be fixed. Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes. GenAI systems don’t give attribution to source materials because at least as constituted now, they can’t. Is it necessary to fix in the model itself? It seems a gate in the post processing pipeline that checks for copyright infringement could work, provided they can create another model that identifies co…

Exactly; there is no need to do this in the model, you just need well understood token retrieval methods for identifying copyright infringement that ChatGPT's competitors already have. You will get into some murky definitions of what is exactly required for copyright infringement vs fair use, etc, but we already do this for ContentId for YouTube and text is far simpler.

This is bogus. Now you require that every piece of copywriter be registered and indexed in a central authority?

What if I write a story and publish it on my blog. Should I be required to submit this to openAI's copywrite model to ensure the story is never used in openAIs other models? What about the other 100 AI model companies that are going to spring up in the next year?

It should be on the curators of the training set to ensure all material inside is fair for them to use.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#638

Post by livinginfear »

lovecg wrote: post #589
jerf wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Who truly owns the tales of Snow White and Cinderella?" If you want to make your point, you need to choose something that isn't already public domain. Disney already only owns their own interpretations, and, arguably, whatever penumbric emanation they can convince a court is stealing from them, but it still certainly isn't the entire space of Snow White and Cinderella stories. There is some fairly recent stuff being…

I think the world would be completely fine without a copyrighted C3PO or Robocop. George Lucas didn’t have billions of merchandising revenue in mind when working on his wild and thought unlikely to be successful science fiction movie in the 70s. Robocop was also a labor of love. We don’t really need Nth Star Wars sequel powered by those extra profits. The art form could be healthier overall.

> George Lucas didn’t have billions of merchandising revenue in mind...

Doesn't copyright stop other people from making billions in merchandising revenue off of George Lucas' ideas without his consent?

> We don’t really need Nth Star Wars sequel powered by those extra profits.

Without a copyrighted C3PO, he could start turning up in just about anyone's derivative works. There could be horrible Star wars sequels forever, or TV ads with C3PO selling household cleaning products.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#639

Post by noitpmeder »

rmholt wrote: post #173
quonn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems unlikely, unless they settle out of court. And why would the NYT settle like that without receiving a billion? Courts are likely to make generally binding decisions.

Yes, but to enforce those decisions in other cases there would still have to be other lawsuits. And I just don't see that happening on a large enough scale to change the industry Maybe I'm wrong though

The point is that OpenAI (and others) will need to change their training pipelines to ensure there is never such a threat of a lawsuit.

Which, to be clear, is absolutely a good thing and what they should have been doing from the start.

Post reply on HN