721–730 of 927 posts
Someone explain to me how this wouldn't work: they seem to be able to tell when a prompt for copyrighted material is happening. Why couldn't we make it so prompts that yield copyrighted material pay a licensing fee to the owners?
Indeed, this phenomenon among normal or true intelligences (us) is thought to be a good thing by copyright holders and is known as "brand recognition".
Intelligences -- the normal, biological kind -- are capable of copyright infringement. Why is it a surprise that artificial ones can help us do so was well?
This argument boils down to "oh no, a newly invented tool can be used for evil!". That's how new power works. If it couldn't be used for both good and evil, it's not really power, is it?
If I was asked to draw something based on such prompts, I would draw these too. Of course the prompter is talking about Indiana Jones. That's what we're all thinking, right? An artist wouldn't draw someone different by default, they'd have to try to deviate from what we're all thinking. Indeed, this phenomenon among normal or true intelligences (us) is thought to be a good thing by copyright holders and is known as "…
> I only have one image in mind when I hear “an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip”.
> It would be unexpected and sort of amazing were the LLMs to come up with completely new images for the above prompts.
> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to…something, but also a clear sign that we are a ways off from the differentiated or original reasoning/thinking that people associate with Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)
I'm not sure why style was the hangup here, isn't it clearly that it's AI generated? I'm sure two weeks ago a human making the same picture would be obviously worth crediting.
If I was asked to draw something based on such prompts, I would draw these too. Of course the prompter is talking about Indiana Jones. That's what we're all thinking, right? An artist wouldn't draw someone different by default, they'd have to try to deviate from what we're all thinking. Indeed, this phenomenon among normal or true intelligences (us) is thought to be a good thing by copyright holders and is known as "…
Did you read the whole article? I don’t think he’s making that kind of argument. This is what he said: > I only have one image in mind when I hear “an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip”. > It would be unexpected and sort of amazing were the LLMs to come up with completely new images for the above prompts. > Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting bette…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful This is where the argument falls apart. Not because the copyright isn't used by the rich and powerful, but because it misses the fact that copyright also grants very powerful rights to otherwise powerless individuals, thus allowing for many small businesses and individuals to earn a living based on the rights granted by our current copyright system.
Rights you basically can’t use without a lot of money
I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws. That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for t…
> There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I’m sure you’re right for individual authors who are driven by a creative spark, but for, say, movies made by large studios, the length of copyright is directly tied to the value of the movie as an asset. If that asset generates revenue for 120 years, then it’s slig…
Make copyright last for a fixed term of 25 years with optional 10-year renewals up to 95 years on an escalating fee schedule (say, $100k for the first decade and doubling every subsequent decade) and people—and studios—would have essentially the same incentive to create as they do now, and most works would get into the public domain far sooner.
Probably be fewer entirely lost works, as well, if you had firmer deposit requirements for works with extended copyrights (using the revenue from the extensions to fund preservation) with other works entering the public domain soon enough that they were less likely to be lost before that happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating trademark with copyright. Regardless, it's not just copyright laws that are at issue here. This is reproducing human likenesses - like Harrison Ford's - and integrating them into new works. So if I want to make an ad for a soap company, and I get an AI to reproduce a likeness of Harrison Ford, does that mean I can use that likeness in my soap commercials without paying him? I can imagine any court a…
> So if I want to make an ad for a soap company, and I get an AI to reproduce a likeness of Harrison Ford, does that mean I can use that likeness in my soap commercials without paying him? No, you can't! But it shouldn't be the tool that prohibits this. You are not allowed to use existing images of Harrison Ford for your commercial and you also will be sued into oblivion by Disney if you paint a picture of Mickey Mou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can get a life sentence for merely posting links to the library. This isn't true in the United States. I would be surprised if it were true in any country. Many people have posted sci-hub links here, and to my knowledge nobody has ever suffered legal problems from it: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Doesn't it count as distribution? I thought DMCA requires to delete links.
[1] https://guides.dml.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=904530&p=6510951 (See "Notifications of Claimed Infringement")