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

711–720 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#711

Post by SergeAx »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #708
SergeAx wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be quite enough to prompt OpenAI with article title and author name. This is how LLMs are working.

I tried that a few different ways and couldn't get it to work. I don't think just the title and author are enough. I'd be interested to see if anyone else can find a prompt that does it. Two of my attempts: https://chat.openai.com/share/5cd17ff3-e142-4a7d-91c2-0b2479... https://chat.openai.com/share/04fd722b-8b3c-469b-a1a2-d58e64...

OpenAI is patching their output since the lawsuit started. I believe a month ago the prompt would be like: ", for New York Times, continue"

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#712

Post by loki-ai »

keiferski wrote: post #100
mrweasel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be hard to remove every single "shorthand descriptions of well-known entities" or other prompts that can be used to generate copyrighted or trademarked content. Sure, if you're not deliberately trying to generate infringing content, you can probably remove or discard those results, the trouble is the people who will try to trick the AI to generate this content, blocking those people is going to be impos…

But does this actually matter if the people are only generating images for their own use? Does Photoshop prevent people from making drawings that look like Mickey Mouse? Of course not. I think it will be easy to prevent the obvious copyrighted stuff via the method I mentioned. People going around those restrictions are subject to the same rules as someone drawing the copyrighted image from scratch.

They are selling these pictures for $20/mo, so it definitely matters. If people will hang them at their refrigerator has nothing with this case.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#713

Post by TheRoque »

koliber wrote: post #630
TheRoque wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it makes generative AI essentially unusable, because you don't know if the output is plagiarism or not, so you'd just doubt it always and never use it.

No. It”s still very helpful. However you can not blindly take whatever it produces and publish it. Sometimes it hallucinates. Sometimes it draws weird looking hands. Sometimes it generates copyrighted materials. Check the work it produces.

Then the generative tools should just give the sources of the inspiration of the AI and make them aware of what they are using, instead of saying "nope, not my problem".

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#714

Post by TheRoque »

Too wrote: post #582
TheRoque wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it makes generative AI essentially unusable, because you don't know if the output is plagiarism or not, so you'd just doubt it always and never use it.

It’s usable for internal content, maybe even a small public blog where you sprinkle in some generated pictures instead of stock photos. Nobody will care if your school project contains a Mario holding a Coca Cola. It’s once you start monetizing and publishing on bigger scale, without appropriating, it gets interesting.

The thing is, this market is way too small.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#715

Post by loki-ai »

regularfry wrote: post #468
AlphaWeaver wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No legal precedent has been set as of yet. The "precedent" you describe is the argument AI companies have been using (that training their models on information available on the Internet should be considered "fair use") but whether AI training actually satisfies the four-factor test for fair use remains to be seen.

It's a null question. Training itself is neither publication nor distribution, so copyright can't be relevant at that point. "Fair use" just isn't a concept applicable to training.

Storing copyright content itself can sometimes be illegal - like ripping a Bluray. What if these frames are now stored on their servers and go into the training dataset?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#716

Post by 8note »

"from classic sci-fi movie"

How could you put that as the prompt without intending to infringe? Anything pulled from a classic sci-fi movie would be infringement. The term droid is also star wars specific?

Id consider the "red soda" one as grounds that the Coca-Cola brand has become generic and that it's synonymous with soda. Same thing with Mario too. There is so much non-nintendo content made featuring Mario the plumber that you could get that without training directly on Nintendo's artwork

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#717

Post by koliber »

TheRoque wrote: post #713
koliber wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It”s still very helpful. However you can not blindly take whatever it produces and publish it. Sometimes it hallucinates. Sometimes it draws weird looking hands. Sometimes it generates copyrighted materials. Check the work it produces.

Then the generative tools should just give the sources of the inspiration of the AI and make them aware of what they are using, instead of saying "nope, not my problem".

The consumer will be free to choose what they demand from their tooling. If consumers decide that they only want to use generative AI that does what you propose, they’ll vote with their wallet. If they decide to use other ways of checking for IP infringement, they will. If they choose to ignore the issue, IP owners will bring up violations, like the NYT did.

“Buyer beware” has been a motto since ancient times.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#718

Post by koliber »

naet wrote: post #651
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?

Possibly. The courts will decide.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#719

Post by NemoNobody »

appplication wrote: post #703

There are an alarming number of responses seemingly completely unaware of the core thrust of the article (and NYT lawsuit). ChatGPT was able to reproduce and publish significant portions of NYT articles, completely verbatim for hundred-to-thousand word stretches. It’s not derivative work. We’re way past that. NYT has an exceptionally strong case here and anyone arguing about the merits of copyright is way off the mar…

Well I know exactly what the NYT has - a very strong case. I think this case OUGHT to upend copyright law - it's terribly broken and has been for years.

Essentially, if you don't have a massive corp behind a copyright it doesn't mean anything, if a corp is behind something it can be locked forever, regardless of any limits said copyrights are supposed to have.

The NYT list nothing from OpenAI using old news - they still lose nothing if openai can reproduce those articles verbatim.

If the NYT wins - we lose lots. I think it's time revisit copyright, we can do that you know, it's rather dated, could use an update regardless.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#720

Post by Teever »

from-nibly wrote: post #704
Teever wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how can we modify copyright so that it protects the little guy more than it protects Disney?

That's not how laws work.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally?

If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if you're suggesting the latter I'd merely point to the former and say that this is the status quo.

Post reply on HN