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

681–690 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#681

Post by Snow_Falls »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #674
Snow_Falls wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

See, I actuall disagree, o think it should be a set time, regardless of authors death and inheritable. I think there would be a lot of things not made near the end of the creators life if they didn't think their family would be supported by it. Hence, why I think it should be a fixed length.

Also I think it could he shorter than 20 years, I picked that just because its the length of patents. IMO, if you haven't profited sifficoently off something in say 10 years, then it doesn't really benefit you to hold it for longer. Do you have any reason for 40 years or does it just "feel right", like with my arbitrary choice to have it be parity with patents?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#683

Post by KETpXDDzR »

I'd expect "Open"AI et al to lobby heavily towards an "AI-generated content is excluded from copyright infringement". I think it's possible that they'll introduce a "generative AI" tax. Charge x cents per generated text/image and distribute the fund to all media companies.

In Germany you pay some amount extra on top of the sales price of anything that can store data (CX, DVD, USB sticks, HDDs, ...). This is then distributed to all companies that could be impacted by software piracy. I'm still not sure if that's legal considering the Geneva convention disallows collective punishment.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#684

Post by qgin »

noitpmeder wrote: post #641
qgin wrote: post #496

Things are about to get a lot worse for generative AI in the United States They are about to be infinitely better for generative AI in China.

China has massive IP theft and Chile labour issues that arguably give them competitive advantages too. Should we let those slide as well?

Each issue is unique. We can evaluate training of AI models on its own without needing to accept child labor.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#685

Post by tuananh »

ricardobeat wrote: post #669
naet wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is AWS violating copyright if you use their servers to transcode pirated content?

bad example. openai did do this. aws did not do the transcoding part.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#686

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Too wrote: post #568
Nebasuke wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a fair analogy. One forces 99% of websites to make a change, while the other is something that would need to be done by the big companies doing the scraping. A Do Not Track flag being legally binding would force small websites, e.g. a local restaurant website, to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand. A company that is mass scraping data for t…

If I understand parent correctly, the restriction flag is opt-in? This turns copyright around completely, expecting every small content producer to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand.

At very least robots.txt is from 1994; it has been part of the web almost from the start (web became public in 1991, so within 3 years).

Claiming ignorance here would be just a little bit disingenuous.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#687

Post by kelseyfrog »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #646
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.…

While a great concept in practical reality we live under a system of laws not of our individual devising, and known to be imperfect. While we can advocate for reform, reality is, LLM makers will be judged under the current law as it currently is formulated. The novelty will be the LLM and its technologies, not a total rethink of copyright under some noble cultural openness concept. So, it’s not actually a corporate n…

We can do what we will. If someone wants to construct an extra-judicial narrative that contradicts the law so believably that it influences and ultimately compells reality through legislative changes, that's their prerogative.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#688

Post by Aeolun »

strix_varius wrote: post #666
idopmstuff wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's why I've always felt like the idea that AI should be blocked from creating these things is generally not the right place to look at copyright. Rather, the issue should be if someone uses AI to create a picture of Mario and then does something commercial with it, you should be able to go after the person engaging in the commercial behavior with the copyrighted image. With you until here for several reasons: 1…

OpenAI is not profiting off providing me with the ability to generate copyrighted images, they’re profiting off giving me the ability to generate copyrighted images.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#689

Post by idopmstuff »

strix_varius wrote: post #666
idopmstuff wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's why I've always felt like the idea that AI should be blocked from creating these things is generally not the right place to look at copyright. Rather, the issue should be if someone uses AI to create a picture of Mario and then does something commercial with it, you should be able to go after the person engaging in the commercial behavior with the copyrighted image. With you until here for several reasons: 1…

> 1. It's not possible for you as an individual consumer to know whether or not the AI result is a violation, given an AI that has been trained on copyrighted works.

I see what you're saying in some cases, but in the cases where the user is explicitly attempting to create images of copyrighted characters (e.g. the Mario example), they would definitely know. I honestly don't see this as a practical issue - as far as I'm aware (and like most on HN I follow these things more than the average person), there aren't a lot of concerns about inadvertent generation of copyrighted material. It's certainly not at issue in the NYT lawsuit.

2. Before you, the AI consumer, uses the generated result, a company (in this case OpenAI) is already charging for it. I'm currently paying OpenAI. That AI is currently able and willing to sell me copyrighted images as part of my subscription. Frankly that should be illegal, full stop.

Totally fair, but I feel like it's a bit more of a gray area. If I use Photoshop to create or modify an image of Mario for personal use, we'd call that fine. I grant you that here OpenAI is doing more of the "creating" than in the Photoshop example, but we still do generally allow people to use paid tools to create copyrighted images for personal use.

I'd also pose a question to you - what if OpenAI weren't charging? Is it acceptable to train an open source model on copyrighted images and have it produce those for personal use?

I guess I just understand the law to revolve more around what the end product is used for, as opposed to whether a paid tool can be used to create that end product.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#690

Post by Aeolun »

shkkmo wrote: post #633
syndacks wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand, I kind of like knowing that all sold Mario stuff has some affiliation with Nintendo. I don’t want to deal with thousands of chinese knockoffs.
Post reply on HN