Live data from Hacker News

AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

axelk.ee

711–720 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#711
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples? There are obviously a lot of programmers here who think AI is a great tool and don't feel disenfranchised by it.

Get your LLM to find some for you.

Fantastic response, but not surprised you're a troll considering your profile text is the most cringe and embarrassing thing I've ever seen on here.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#712

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…

> 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?"

Actually the burden is to prove that what AI is producing is plagiarism or copyright violation, this isn't about some special right, but that there are many making the case that things produced by AI are duplication of their work.

I'm also not sure where the concept of "the tool" be given a right to anything, That certainly isn't my argument, the right of the work should be to the user/owner used to create things with the tool. There are several pieces in the SFMOMA that use automation to create art, that art is credited to the creator of the machine, not the machine, I see AI in a similar lens.

You are intentionally selecting a device that makes duplicates of things as your comparator, so I can't tell if that is biased or some sort of flaw in your argument.

But an LLM being trained on works, and generating something based off of that training is not a duplication of any specific copyrighted material, and is wholly unique is not duplication.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#713
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible able to host your website in a way so that it couldn't be found via search engines (and thus wouldn't be crawlable I hope)? I know this has repercussions on findability, but if that wasn't a concern, I'm curious how one might circumvent getting crawled.

robots.txt is a way of leaving the door unlocked but kindly asking bots to stay outside.

Which works when you live in normal civil times, when you live in jungle times people and robots will do whatever they want and the most powerful will get their way.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#714

There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…

There is already a term for this, and ironically enough, it's often thrown around in discussions of machine learning; it's called emergence. As scales change, new properties appear, which is why we can describe a Chimpanzee as "swinging between the trees" even though at the level of quantum field theory there is no such thing as trees, Chimpanzees, or swinging.

Likewise, people shouldn't be surprised that as AI compute scales up, new forms of harm can be created, thereby introducing new moral quandaries. It's like comparing GPT-1 against today's frontier models. One is a fun albeit useless toy. The other is effecting categorical changes in the way knowledge work is done. In both cases the underlying technology is the same, but their impacts are totally different.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#715
post #234
post #171

if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal

This is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.

[dead]

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy is illegal and most people don't do it. In a world without copyright, I can stand up a slick 100% legal website (and apps, etc) and distribute electronic copies of every single book (or whatever) straight to normies' phones, and I am free to monetize this scheme however I want.

You're underestimating how easy and common piracy is. You can get books, movies, or music with just a search, for free, with no consequences. It's generally socially accepted. This report tracked 216 billion visits to piracy websites in 2024: https://www.muso.com/blog/what-216-billion-visits-to-piracy-... Music piracy is down just because services like Spotify let you listen to any song (for free with ads or with a s…

What percentage of books read by Americans in 2025 (or choose another relatively recent year) were pirated?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#717
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, the constant AI scraping is actually costing content providers additional money for no return. At least Google/Bing/Yahoo scraping would then be used to provide links back to your content.

How do you distinguish Google/MS scraping for Gemini/Copilot vs Google Search/Bing? In the case of Google, the UA is the same and you are entirely at their mercy to honor the Google-Extended instructions in robots.txt Google has further complicated it with new search announcement blurring lines between regular search and AI search. And AI likes to not honor any licenses or instructions when it is hungry for training…

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some sort of legal action against Google, the monopoly, to make the distinction in how their crawlers use scraped content.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#718

There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…

> It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different. The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior. Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is th…

What a total non-sequitur. You think you found flaw in one of the examples, instead of seeing if you can come up with better ones, you say it so it can't be this, therefore it's a completely different thing that makes zero sense. Machines aren't "doing" anything, they're being wielded by humans. And they're doing it at scale, to other humans, via the force multiplication of machines.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're underestimating how easy and common piracy is. You can get books, movies, or music with just a search, for free, with no consequences. It's generally socially accepted. This report tracked 216 billion visits to piracy websites in 2024: https://www.muso.com/blog/what-216-billion-visits-to-piracy-... Music piracy is down just because services like Spotify let you listen to any song (for free with ads or with a s…

What percentage of books read by Americans in 2025 (or choose another relatively recent year) were pirated?

No one knows. You're asking about uncaught crimes with no victim who can report it.

What data makes you think it's low?

Post reply on HN