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

701–710 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#701

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

saghm wrote: post #679
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ChatGPT does nothing to scale copying somebody else's website. What are we talking about here, exactly? The article doesn't link to the original or clone, they don't mention rephrasing, and they specifically call out link text being the same. Even if you need the cloned site not to be identical, a thesaurus + scraper should scale far better than having an LLM do it!

> But ChatGPT does nothing to scale copying somebody else's website. What are we talking about here, exactly? "Make me a website that has the same content as that other one so I can get views instead" is not something you could could do generically and quickly with a free service a few years ago, but it is today. I'd argue that it's not beneficial to people who create original content or society at large that this is…

Of the set of people who have the idea to do this, who think to ask an LLM for help, and who can pay for the hosting, how many do you think would have been stopped by googling wordpress tutorials? Even if you do think that was a high barrier to entry, a dozen people could plagiarize the whole internet. Plagiarism had already fully saturated scaling 15 years ago. Nobody in 2010 would think "my content was stolen and their SEO outranks me on google" was a line out of sci-fi; it was status quo. It sucked but nothing changed, it just still sucks. The price we pay for an open web.

This article adds nothing to the discussion and seems to be here just because of a provocative title. These same arguments happen under every other AI article, they don't need to happen here. Nobody reads the articles anyway, or else one of the myriad coherent, well-written, and/or insightful AI-critical articles of the month would be here instead.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#702

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

abustamam wrote: post #687
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. In what way is plagiarism bad if it doesn't harm? If it were harmless to pretend you authored a unique take, how is the parent expected to react to you not harming them such that they realize it's bad?

Harmless doesn't imply ethical. Plagiarism that doesn't harm is still lying.

Fair enough, shame on me for assuming utilitarianism.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#703

Post by lelanthran »

Meph504 wrote: post #692
dtn wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. Is there a name for the fallacy when people act like models and algorithms should be granted the same rights as human beings?

Is it a fallacy? Can you provide a legal or logical basis for this being treated differently.

Hammers aren't granted rights.

Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#704

Post by Meph504 »

lelanthran wrote: post #703
Meph504 wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a fallacy? Can you provide a legal or logical basis for this being treated differently.

Hammers aren't granted rights. Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI.

And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the original source material even when none of that material is present in the end result?

So if we can't just leave it at its a tool, then we have to look at existing frameworks of laws and ethics to make the case of how this should be treated.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#705

Post by piloto_ciego »

hectdev wrote: post #199
Bombthecat wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think we are at the point where copyright doesn't exist anymore, at least for AI

All of human knowledge (an exaggeration, I know) at our finger tips. It's the most punk rock, anarchist thing tech has done since the internet and it's funny it's shaped as a product.

This is what boggles my freaking mind, it's so cool that this is happening, and most of the people I thought were the cool anarcho-punks are falling on the side of copyright and more capitalism-colonizing the space of ideas. It's crazy!

People cannot even envision a world that's not this transactional thing and it's really sad. In the post-scarcity world it's going to be really hard to reprogram these people. Wasn't there a Star Trek episode about this with a cryonics guy?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#706

Post by Meph504 »

simianparrot wrote: post #699
dtn wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. Is there a name for the fallacy when people act like models and algorithms should be granted the same rights as human beings?

AI psychosis would be my term. When you attribute to software the characteristics of a human you are in a psychosis.

Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#707

Post by dtn »

Meph504 wrote: post #704
lelanthran wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hammers aren't granted rights. Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism? In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI. And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the…

I'll just take my tools (video camera) into a cinema to learn off the latest Hollywood flicks. It's not an accurate 1:1 representation to the original source material, so the output that I've produced from it belongs to me.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#708

Post by d3Xt3r »

abustamam wrote: post #688
socksy wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then as a California resident you should presumably be googling instead about the CCPA and the right to delete :)

I've done that. They pop up like hydra heads. The point isn't right to delete. The point is right to not have my personal info plastered all over the internet without me having to contact each site and say "plz stop" and for them to say "OK we'll do it in 7-10 business days"

You'd be considered lucky if you can even find an email address. I had some of my personal info crop up on Google searches on Fedora mailing lists, I've emailed various people at Fedora to get them delete my old messages or redact them, but never received a response. :(

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#709

Post by Meph504 »

dtn wrote: post #707
Meph504 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism? In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI. And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the…

I'll just take my tools (video camera) into a cinema to learn off the latest Hollywood flicks. It's not an accurate 1:1 representation to the original source material, so the output that I've produced from it belongs to me.

Are you trying to make a shoestring argument?

Sure you can do that, but because there are several laws against that specific action already, you will be likely face prosecution, and the content (something poorly duplicated, not created) would be seized.

But lets assume, that your camera has an LLM in it, and it trained in this fashion, and you performed this action on countless other films, and then the camera could produce wholly unique and original work that did not have any duplication of the original works it sampled. The work produced would not be a violation of copyright, nor would it be plagiarism.

Just as someone whose education was to watch a large number of movies, and then created their own based on that education.

But as previously mentioned you may face the ramifications of violating the agreement you had for accessing the original source material in an illegal way.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#710

Post by lelanthran »

Meph504 wrote: post #704
lelanthran wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hammers aren't granted rights. Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism? In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI. And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the…

> Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

Of course they are! Is a video recorder not a tool? No one is claiming rights for video recorders.

Once again, the status quo is that tools do not get rights, the burden is on you to prove why an exemption should be made, not on those who are asking "why should tools get rights?"

Post reply on HN