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

731–740 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#731

Post by lelanthran »

Meph504 wrote: post #712
lelanthran wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wit…

> 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.

Right[1], and humans can do that, no problem - ingesting existing material and recombining them to produce something new (not necessarily unique) is a right that humans are afforded. The question being asked is, since we don't allow that right to any other tools, why does this tool need an exemption?

-------------

[1] Not really (i.e. I don't necessarily agree with this point), but lets assume it for the sake of this discussion.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#732

Post by sethammons »

danaris wrote: post #728
llm_nerd wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The majority of the population, sitting outside the VC bubble, views AI unfavorably. Sure, where AI means threatens my job or my skills, people view it unfavourably. But then they use it. They're all using it. People's rhetoric seldom matches their actions. >enthusiastically expropriate that, and we end up with Fully Automated Luxury Communism Maybe in other countries, initially, but the US is very firmly a plutocra…

> They're all using it. [Citation needed] I know many more people who do not use AI than who use it, and many more who refuse to use AI than people who are enthusiastic about it. Given your username, you are almost certainly in a bubble—an echo chamber—that makes it seem to you as though "everyone is using it." I recommend getting outside that bubble and talking to non-technical people outside your usual circles, esp…

My blue collar buddy in water treatment uses ai to summarize reports and fix up emails. My retired neighbor who "doesn't do technology" was having an ai conversation on a product he was thinking of buying. I ordered through a voice kiosk ai at the drive-through last week. I am surprised how fast it is propagating.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#733

Post by thedevilslawyer »

customguy wrote: post #718
Meph504 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are no such examples (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#734

Post by thedevilslawyer »

LunicLynx wrote: post #582
boringg wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference here is that you guys are talking ethics. And in fact what were talking about is enforcement. While its unethical to pick one flower (in it's purest form, robbing the commons of the beauty of a flower), it won't be enforced.

Fair. AI might also not be the problem, but how it is utilized. Suddenly everyone and their grandma are specialist at everything and the actual value of understanding is not appreciated anymore.

Ok, what is so special about understanding anyway? we understand way less things than we do no understand.

IMO, we're just giving special weight to understanding just because it gives people wages. Someone's specific brain structure should not privilege them over others. UBI or something equitable on those lines is the answer.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#735

Post by DeusExMachina »

danorama wrote: post #414

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…

I think that the problem arises because people equate things that are not the same.

One person learning something is good. At scale, that becomes everyone learning something. That's even better.

Machine learning is not scaling up people learning. It's completely different even if it's called "learning".

As the article argues, it's plagiarism at scale. In that sense, one person plagiarizing content is bad. Everyone plagiarizing at scale by using LLMs is even worse.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#736

Post by _aavaa_ »

caconym_ wrote: post #700
_aavaa_ wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I do, in part because the difference between fan fiction and fiction, is that one has the blessing of the copyright holder while the other doesn't. Disney turning common folk tales (the culture of the day) into movies is not considered fan fiction because there was no monopoly on who could tell those stories, and how. If lack of copyright for fan fiction and derivative work hasn't stopped good fan fiction authors…

> Yes I do, in part because the difference between fan fiction and fiction, is that one has the blessing of the copyright holder while the other doesn't. This is a really odd thing to say. You can just go write your own fiction, right now. You can invent your own original characters and setting and plot and go write it. You will automatically own the copyright to your own work; there is no other party who must "bless…

> You can just go write your own fiction, right now. You can invent your own original characters and setting and plot and go write it. You will automatically own the copyright to your own work; there is no other party who must "bless" your efforts.

I keep going back to the old-school Disney example because it's easiest to see: Disney did not create Snow White, Bambi, Robin Hood, or Peter Pan. All of those movies are highly influential and core to Disney and the culture of people growing up with them. And they're all fan fiction, or would be considered as such, and be impossible to produce and monetize if Disney had to live with the same copyright restrictions they impose on the rest of us.

If I want to now go and recreate my own movie based on one of the original texts, I think it would be next to impossible since the threat of lawsuit (even if I use none of their IP and would eventually win) would make financing impossible.

Fan fiction has been turned into an edge case by the current copyright system. Putting your own spin on the stories you grew up with used to be the norm.

> my specific concern is for individual artists who hold the rights to their work

To a large degree individual artists do not hold copyright for their work, they often sign it away (especially musicians and authors) in exchange for signing, advances, and distribution.

> what effect do you think abolishment of copyright will have on the production of films that are actually good? Who will finance them when it's impossible to directly monetize them?

I think they will still be financed. Take books, I don't think bookstores will want to vertically integrate from book discovery through printing and retail stores. Consumers will still need ways to identify reputable book publishers to limit what they purchase next.

> I think commodity slop will be the only thing that gets funded anymore

One could argue that this is what has always dominated funding. Most revenue and shows have been for artistically devoid pieces of media (especially in movies).

> No artists are relying on royalties and similar payments for their work.

The 0.00001$ per stream for musicians? Or the 1$ residual checks for reruns?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#737

Post by rhubarbtree »

danorama wrote: post #414

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…

But it’s not the same though. If I look at a webpage, it’s still there for other people to enjoy. That’s not the same as a flower being picked.

Reasoning by analogy doesn’t work if your analogy isn’t well matched.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#738

Post by danaris »

sethammons wrote: post #732
danaris wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're all using it. [Citation needed] I know many more people who do not use AI than who use it, and many more who refuse to use AI than people who are enthusiastic about it. Given your username, you are almost certainly in a bubble—an echo chamber—that makes it seem to you as though "everyone is using it." I recommend getting outside that bubble and talking to non-technical people outside your usual circles, esp…

My blue collar buddy in water treatment uses ai to summarize reports and fix up emails. My retired neighbor who "doesn't do technology" was having an ai conversation on a product he was thinking of buying. I ordered through a voice kiosk ai at the drive-through last week. I am surprised how fast it is propagating.

But, see, this is part of the problem:

Most of the people I hear from who use AI say everyone they know uses AI.

Most of the people I hear from who don't use AI say no one they know uses AI.

It seems to me that we've got competing bubbles here. But the statistics certainly show that, leaving aside whether they use it, most people don't like it or want it.

...I think it's also worth noting that AI usage is likely to be "louder" than AI avoidance in many cases—that is, whichever side of this one falls on, it's easier to detect someone pasting from ChatGPT directly into emails, or complaining that Gemini told them you would sell them XYZ, than it is to detect someone who's just keeping on the way they've always been.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#739

Post by Meph504 »

customguy wrote: post #718
Meph504 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why would I attempt to come up with a "better" example of a premise I reject?

Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around. Plagiarism be it small scale or large isn't acceptable, and the idea that humans doing things that are wrong is ok, but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#740

Post by customguy »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #733
customguy wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are no such examples (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

> (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

That's not the criticism, that's the straw man used to dodge the criticism. Of course the straw man makes no sense, that's why it gets put up.

Machines aren't doing anything, humans are doing things, with or without machines.

"It's fine to raise the temperature of your surroundings by 0.0001 degrees by exhaling. It's less fine to set a house on fire, and even less fine to ignite a nuke. But aren't the all the same thing? How hypocritical that raising temperature is okay for some but not others???"

That things can change quality with quantity/frequency is trivially obvious, and you can think of many examples. Bad ones, good ones, doesn't matter. The point of OP stands, all that was added was how absolutely brazen the nonsense is getting.

Post reply on HN