Things are about to get worse for generative AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#651

Post by naet » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

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…

OpenAI is selling access to their GPT models, and those models are outputting copyright material for me to consume... isn't that just as much of a violation?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#652

Post by cogman10 » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

josh-sematic wrote: post #590

cogman10 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the fair use clause he's using is about giving commentary. The reason the tool is problematic is because derivative works are also copyrighted. LLMs aren't adding value to their output or using creative functionality. That are smashing multiple works together to produce a response. And, many of them are selling the output which is doubly problematic. Consider this, if I sell a book about gandolf and Dumbledor…

But does the word processor you used to write your Dumbledore/Gandalf fanfic hold liability for being sued because it enabled your misuse? Then neither should Dall-E hold liability because it enabled you to produce an illustration for that book. It is you—the person who tries to sell your derivative work, who holds liability, and not the tools you used to produce it.

LLMs aren't word processors.

If I went around, recorded broadway shows, and then sold them to anyone that wants them. You'd agree that's violating copyright. Even if I mixed them or made my own remix, that's still a copyright violation.

Regardless of what the purchaser does with the material, I'm violating copyright because I'm selling derivative works. The only thing LLMs do is create derivative works. It doesn't matter that you can prompt them to put their own spin on derivatives just like it wouldn't matter if I took requests with my bootleg mixing company (I'm just a tool of piracy! I have no control if you decide to sell the works after I sold it to you).

I'll also point out, OpenAI is extra on thin ice because it's not infeasible that someone like the NY Times wouldn't make their own LLM based on their material and sell the output to subscribers. That's a real harm. Fanfic doesn't often get prosecuted because nobody is sell it so harm is hard to prove. But when you have a business built around selling these derivative works, that's the issue.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#653

Post by asylteltine » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:54 PM UTC

Zpalmtree wrote: post #581

MeImCounting wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isnt a great take at all. Copyright is certainly an important part of our society upon which like the parent said, Open Source Software and other incredibly valuable things lie. Cops on the other hand solely exist for the reason of locking people in cages. Why you ever feel like you need to have someone else locked in a cage is beyond me. When I have been the victim of a crime the cops have not shown and when th…

> Why you ever feel like you need to have someone else locked in a cage is beyond me Uh, maybe if they murder people?

Or steal your car, or break your nose, or rob your house, etc. I guess those are solved problems then?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#654

Post by d6e » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #561

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.…

"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…

Am I not allowed to draw Mario? I don't really see the difference in me drawing mario or an AI drawing mario.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#655

Post by chubot » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #616

chubot wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure it was never like that, it was always gated by iTunes. It was an integrated system, not an open one. Definitely is today. It's difficult to copy mp3 files directly to an iPhone and play them. Even from a Mac, but even more so from a PC or Linux. I bet less than 1% of iPhone and iPad users do that. They mostly pay for streaming. (Again, not saying that's better, but just that the general public doesn't do…

> Pretty sure it was never like that, it was always gated by iTunes. Then you need to recalibrate your certainty assessment. Not only did I do this personally with both music and videos, it is incredibly easy to find documentation of the steps. First google result: https://www.alphr.com/add-music-to-ipod-without-itunes/ Apple's ipod sales absolutely benefited significantly from music piracy. Especially early on when…

I looked through the instructions

I guess I'll just say "meh" -- it doesn't negate the main point, which is that Apple spent a lot of money and time to acquire rights, and they have a music store.

It is gated by iTunes, just not 100%

I know some people side load stuff on devices -- there's no device where that's impossible.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#656

Post by Throw839 » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

madamelic wrote: post #466

ForkMeOnTinder wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no fair or private use of hyper-realistic fake money. What about every movie ever made where two people trade a briefcase full of cash?

This is actually a really fascinating topic! I am not sure how far Photoshop takes their filters but those bills aren't actually replicas nor can they be mistaken on reasonable examination (a cashier glancing at them) Typically their texts read "For movie use only" over the seals in the middle or other things that make it clearly distinguishable as fake money that isn't legal tender. I think some of them flip the hea…

> but those bills aren't actually replicas

In some movies those are actual real money. Just the top layer.

Dealing with legislation, lawyers and legal compliance is soo expensive, they would rather use a few thousand real dollars for couple of hours.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#657

Post by d6e » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #234

kranke155 wrote: post #231

The generative AI rollout has taught me what happens when the interests of the many intersect with the destruction of the few. You get steamrolled for defending yourself while you overhear above applause to those who have robbed you of your future.

It makes no sense that one is not allowed to make and market a CG Mario movie, but suddenly if you use AI to launder the data it's suddenly ok.

I think there's a difference between being allowed to draw mario vs being allowed to draw and sell mario.

It's completely legal for me to draw mario for my own purposes. It should be legal for me to make an ai draw mario for my own purposes.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#658

Post by ls612 » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

pointlessone wrote: post #87

docdeek wrote: post #60

How is this different to Googling “robot cop” or “video game plumber” and being served copyrighted material? Is it because Google will link to the image source? Or does the infringement begin when I use the image for gain, or claim it as my own? Perhaps it is because Google was allowed to crawl the page with the original image, so presenting them with a link is fine?

Google directs you to the original work. It doesn’t present you a derivative work based on the original. That is, original author, presumably, benefits from distribution. AI, on the other hand, slurps multiple original works, chews them up and gives you something average but close enough, and not any specific work in particular.

Google shows snippets of copyrighted work all of the time, and it certainly ingests the entire copyrighted work when googlebot views the page to index it. The only real issue here is that NYT figured out a way to get bingbot to look up an entire article from the internet and repeat it which may not be kosher. But if search engines can ingest the entire content of copyrighted works (subject to robots.txt) then I don't see why AI training should be different on that front.

Of course, the real reason it is different is that it impacts different interest groups than search engines, and the rule of law is a sham. Creatives will do anything to ensure they don't get disrupted and can continue extracting rent from society, and have learned a lot of tools of rhetoric from their fancy colleges to put to use in that effort, compared to the industrial workers who got disrupted by automation a generation ago.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#659

Post by Levitz » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:11 PM UTC

phatfish wrote: post #480

Spivak wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People liked having Napster, but it didn't stop file sharing going from a big mainstream app to underground sites run out of Russia (or other places that ignore copyright law). Sure, you can download music/movies still, but it's not like the Napster days. "Generative AI" is obviously copyright infringement, so owners of the copyright will win in court. Either Microsoft will have to fight a mass of legal cases, some w…

>People liked having Napster, but it didn't stop file sharing going from a big mainstream app to underground sites run out of Russia (or other places that ignore copyright law). Sure, you can download music/movies still, but it's not like the Napster days.

Definitely, but that's not because as society we managed to put an end to piracy. It's because people are just not as interested as they were before. Piracy networks for media are alive and well, I'd even say that some are in the best shape they've ever been.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#660

Post by kromem » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

dmbche wrote: post #507

Hey so the problem isn't the output of the LLMs but the input - the data they are trained on is stolen (big suprise, you can't claim fair use when using something commercially, like training your LLM). The output is irrelevant. Edit1: If you want to verify this, check out all the lawsuits against AI companies : it's always about using their copywritten goods. Any discussion about the output is to talk about the amoun…

Here's one of the senior legal peeps at the EFF who has litigated IP cases talking about the issue: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-cop...

It's not as clear cut as you think it is.