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

671–680 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#671

Post by lovecg »

livinginfear wrote: post #638
lovecg wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 forev…

Centralization makes a difference here I think. Disney built an impressive machine where everything feeds on everything else. The problem is not so much bad sequels per se, it’s all the marketing that goes into making sure they solidly occupy their corner of our mindshare and force the whole industry to compete churning out more and more subpar sequels. If one company would build a Star Wars theme park, another produced toys etc. etc. this might not be a huge concern.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#672

Post by SergeAx »

idopmstuff wrote: post #663
d6e wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This has always felt like the important-but-ignored distinction to me. You can definitely draw Mario! Copyright doesn't protect against you doing so. You can also use tools to recreate copyrighted materials. For example, you can use Word to type out the text of a copyrighted book. Perhaps more relevant to the AI discussion, you can use a scanner and printer to reprint copyrighted text. What you can't do is use those…

But... OpenAI is clearly profiting their $20/m on drawing Mario pictures and word-by-word reproduction of NYT articles?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#673

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

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.

Fine if they weren't copyrighted today, or ever? Because if copyright was eliminated the day Star Wars was released, other people would have copied the film reels and charged for entry, and Lucas would have hardly made a cent. Or if copyright was eliminated the day he went looking for funding, it wouldn't have ever been made. Personally, I think the world's a little richer for star wars's existence.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#674

Post by kayodelycaon »

Snow_Falls wrote: post #549
kayodelycaon wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an author, I do want the stories I write and worlds I build to be protected for a reasonable period. Right now, copyright is a significant discouragement to any other entities from taking a story I wrote and claiming it as their own and preventing me from ever growing an audience for my work. It’s far from perfect, and I can’t afford litigation, but it enshrines a cultural value of allowing people to create things…

How do you feel about the lengths of copyright? Do you feel the current length (life + 70 years) is too much/too little/ just right? Personally, as much as I hate the concept of copyright, I do still want artists (I include authors etc in this term) to be able to do their work professionally without relying on something like patreon (which primarily predates serialised work like comics) so I would prefer shortening c…

The current length is indefensible to me. There is zero justification for it beyond pure profit. I’d prefer it be lifetime of original creator, only for the original creator. All other cases (transfer of copyright, death of the creator, etc) would have a maximum of 20 years.

Alternatively, I’d prefer 30 or 40 years, but I would grudgingly accept 20. :)

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#675

Post by wwweston »

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.…

> culture is a communal property

Public domain / communal property is also part of copyright, so it's not as if this is some forgotten concept that needs to be restored to the discourse.

Georgism is underconsidered, though.

> By focusing solely on the legal implications and ignoring the historical context of cultural storytelling

The legal implications are human implications and as much a part of culture as anything else. They have to do with what's fair and how rewards for effort are recognized and distributed. Formalizing this is less important in cultures that aren't oriented around market economies, which seems to be what much of this "rich tapestry of folklore" discourse wants to evoke and have us hearken back to, but that doesn't describe any society that's figuring out how to handle AI.

> we might actually limit the tools of cultural expression to comply with some weird outdated copyright thing is just...bonkers.

What's bonkers is the life in the literally backwards idea copyright is (or should be) mooted or outdated by novel reproduction capabilities.

Copyright became compelling because of novel reproduction capabilities.

The specific capabilities at the time were industrialized printing. People apparently much smarter than the typical software professional realized that meant some badly aligned incentives between (a) those holding these new reproduction capabilities and (b) those who created the works on which the value of those new reproduction capabilities relied. The heart of the copyright bargain is in aligning those incentives.

Specific novel reproduction techniques can change the details of what's prohibited or restricted or remitted and how and on what basis and powers/limits of enforcement, etc etc. But the they don't change the wisdom in the bargain. The only thing that would change that is a better way of organizing and rewarding the productive capacity of society.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#676

Post by Havoc »

j_maffe wrote: post #146
Havoc wrote: post #55

To me that’s the wrong question. Everyone knew it was trained on copyrighted material and capable of eerily similar outputs. But it’s already done. At scale. Large corps committing fully. There is no chance of that toothpaste going back in the tube. It’s a bit like when big tech built on aggressive user data harvesting. Whether it’s right, ethical or even legal is academic at this stage. They just did it - effectivel…

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, so give up on it." I'm sure it works out great for taking action and solving problems.

It's an observation & prediction, not a problem solving attempt...

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#677

Post by lovecg »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #673
lovecg wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fine if they weren't copyrighted today, or ever? Because if copyright was eliminated the day Star Wars was released, other people would have copied the film reels and charged for entry, and Lucas would have hardly made a cent. Or if copyright was eliminated the day he went looking for funding, it wouldn't have ever been made. Personally, I think the world's a little richer for star wars's existence.

You make a good point, there’s a difference in copyrighting exact works vs. the characters or the story that the work is made up of. I’m not arguing for removing literal copyright (though the terms should be shorter). But I think it’s fine if other people rushed to make their own Star Wars movies after it came out. Hardcore fans are pretty good at deciding what’s “canon” vs. not anyway, and the rest of us don’t care as long as the work is of good quality. Would it matter if the same Spiderman or Batman movie that’s remade once a decade could be made by literally anyone without paying royalties? It could make for richer content I’d think.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#678

Post by Havoc »

anonymousab wrote: post #462
Havoc wrote: post #55

To me that’s the wrong question. Everyone knew it was trained on copyrighted material and capable of eerily similar outputs. But it’s already done. At scale. Large corps committing fully. There is no chance of that toothpaste going back in the tube. It’s a bit like when big tech built on aggressive user data harvesting. Whether it’s right, ethical or even legal is academic at this stage. They just did it - effectivel…

Or they can be forced to destroy or retrain their models without any copyright materials for which they don't have or do not now attain licenses for. These are multi-billion/trillion dollar companies. They can afford to be responsible members of society here, however much their shareholders and C-suite might hate it.

>Or they can be forced to destroy or retrain their models

Perhaps.

The media industries have been quite successful in going after kids torrenting movies.

I suspect they'll have less luck going after big tech & an industry drowning in money inflows.

Keep in mind various large techs have already issued blanket indemnities on infringement to their customers. They're absolutely committed & are gonna throw enough lawyers at this to keep everyone busy until 2030.

>They can afford to be responsible members of society here

oh absolutely agree, but they're not going to do that. This is an industry built on questionable practices like tracking after all

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#679

Post by Nevermark »

lovecg wrote: post #677
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine if they weren't copyrighted today, or ever? Because if copyright was eliminated the day Star Wars was released, other people would have copied the film reels and charged for entry, and Lucas would have hardly made a cent. Or if copyright was eliminated the day he went looking for funding, it wouldn't have ever been made. Personally, I think the world's a little richer for star wars's existence.

You make a good point, there’s a difference in copyrighting exact works vs. the characters or the story that the work is made up of. I’m not arguing for removing literal copyright (though the terms should be shorter). But I think it’s fine if other people rushed to make their own Star Wars movies after it came out. Hardcore fans are pretty good at deciding what’s “canon” vs. not anyway, and the rest of us don’t care…

The only problem with this view, is:

> "the rest of us don’t care as long as the work is of good quality"

Copyright protects Disney.

But it also protects every creative author, no matter how disadvantaged, from mass shareholder driven behemoths.

Today "Disney likes your work" is ear music. Without copyright it would be a death nell.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#680

Post by shkkmo »

chubot wrote: post #655
shkkmo wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You just can't admit being wrong huh?

The ipod was launched two years before the itunes store. Even after the itunes store launched, you could just still load your other music into itunes if you wanted. All music was sideloaded (i.e transfered directly over USB) onto ipods at this point

You don't seem to know any of this history and are just making things up. I don't think Apple had to pay any money for the right to sell music via the iTunes store. What they did do was add DRM to music sold through the store, at least until they were big enough to renegotiate in 2009.

Post reply on HN