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

AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

axelk.ee

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#641

Post by joquarky »

bjt wrote: post #438
StableAlkyne wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things How do you explain the creative works of writing, music, and art that existed in the millennia of human history between the Mesopotamians and the Enlightenment era?

They tended to be solo productions, or sponsored by aristocratic patrons. Anyone suggesting that we could create movies, TV, music, or games on the scale we do today, without copyright, does not seem worth taking seriously.

I wonder which is more valuable: commercial movies, TV, music, and games or intellectual freedom?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#642

Post by omnimus »

WarmWash wrote: post #288
omnimus wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total sleight of hand. Ad blocking has always been a problem for creators but it's aimed at big corps - non-creators. The creators asked people to support them other ways or turn off the blocking. And it's not like the little independent creators wanted this version of commercialized internet in the first place. The ai marketing teams are spinning everything they can but no AI companies are the conscript, the vulture…

The conversion from viewer to donator is around 1%. This is true from wikipedia, to twitch, to podcasts. The number of people who will not ever load your ads is around 30%. I can tell you that creators talk about this a lot in private, but will not publicly because the internet has a mass delusion on how creation and compensation works. It's like trying to convince christians that jesus obviously didn't come back fro…

So what's your point? AI is justified because users use ad blockers?

The whole situation including the ad system of the internet is made by the same corporations. All of it. They didn't even want paywalled content on the internet because this way they don't have to tell people how much stuff costs and how much it makes. Facebook famously makes so much money on it's users that at some point they were considering paying them.

There shouldn't be any mercy with the mega companies. On the other hand every single person that's being taken advantage now (like anybody whos ever posted anything) should be defended because copyright has failed them.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#643

Post by joquarky »

0xffff2 wrote: post #543
4chandaily wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

A key component of the GPL is the requirement that source of code of programs that use the GPL code be made available. Without IP laws, how would you achieve that goal of the GPL?

Does this matter anymore when everything can be reverse engineered?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#644

Post by joquarky »

deaton wrote: post #541
cortesoft wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing books and creating music also takes no capital investment

And people do do those things out of passion, and many of them are happy to share it so you can listen to it for free. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control what happens to what they made.

> That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control

What value system grants the right to control what you make?

Outside human culture, where does nature exhibit this value?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#645

Post by joquarky »

cortesoft wrote: post #563
deaton wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people do do those things out of passion, and many of them are happy to share it so you can listen to it for free. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control what happens to what they made.

Sure, but you said that open source software is unique because it doesn't take capital. It isn't unique, as demonstrated by the two other examples (out of many) that I posted. Whether someone should own the right to control is a separate issue. Your previous response made it seem like the lack of capital requirement was the distinction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You argued that if you didn't own the copyr…

Unfortunately, you're fighting an endless battle.

Copyright maximalists always move the goalposts when you pin them down.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#647

Post by adamzwasserman »

saghm wrote: post #268
dmoose wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did the first homo sapiens exist? Ideas like species evolve. Saying there are no original ideas seems to me an attempt to glibly capture something quite fundamental.

I don't disagree with your premise, but I'd argue that saying "there are no original ideas" in the context of a discussion of plagiarism is needlessly reductive. Even though I think I mostly agree with the author here, I think there are legitimate counterarguments that can be made; equating all of the ways someone can cite or build upon an idea with copying something word-for-word and claiming it's your own is not on…

No offense, but you sound like someone who has never built a language model. Anyone who has actually built one understands that there is no copying going on. Just predicting words (tokens actually).

The problem is that people's words are MUCH more predictable then they would like to believe. And that truth upsets them.

In addition to having created models, I also write books and articles. Probably more than most people commenting here. I have a firm grip on what actual copyright law is and the pros and the cons of it.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#648

Post by ajam1507 »

codexb wrote: post #203
ggillas wrote: post #109

IP attorney here and actively working on this problem. nla: if you create content online (public repo code, blog, podcast, YouTube, publishing) the smartest thing you can do if to file a US copyright, even if you have a hobby blog. Anthropic paid $1.5B in a class settlement to authors because it was piracy of copyrighted works. If we as a HN community had our works protected, there are potentially huge statutory dama…

Anthropic didn't lose because they scraped (read) copyrighted works. They lost because they distributed copyrighted works directly via torrents. Those aren't the same.

That was Meta. The judge ruled in the Anthropic case that they infringed because they downloaded pirated copies of books that they could have otherwise purchased legally, and for retaining copies of those books as a central library.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#649

Post by [deleted] »

kmeisthax wrote: post #457
jongjong wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great point. I think for coding, the wording of the MIT open source license makes it clear that copying and distributing the software is authorised on a small scale and it's very clear that the act of copying must involve a person. It provides distribution and modification rights to "any person obtaining a copy of the software" and explicitly requires attribution for any significant parts. Mass-ingesting th…

This would be an extremely novel mechanism of copyright litigation and I doubt it would fly in an American court with its' emphasis on highly individualized legal rights and obligations. And, if it did get accepted by the courts, that's halfway to an even crazier argument: that the MIT license only allows individual distribution to known parties; i.e. no hosting the code on a website or seeding it on BitTorrent, beca…

[deleted]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#650

Post by adamzwasserman »

nonethewiser wrote: post #567
adamzwasserman wrote: post #39

People need to cope with the fact that no thought is original. Even Newton and Leibniz were having the same thoughts at the same time. Get over it.

Im not sure where I land - is it just information compiled like humans do at scale or is it different? But I am sympathetic to your idea. I think it points to an interesting trend either way. People are less tolerant of machines. Failures of machines are reviled because of their nature, even when the overall problem compared to humans is less. For example, self driving cars. If self driving cars halve traffic deaths…

[dead]
Post reply on HN