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

771–780 of 783 posts

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#771

Post by simianparrot »

Meph504 wrote: post #706
simianparrot wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not the topic. Read the post I replied to. No matter what a piece of software will never be a human.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#772

Post by Meph504 »

simianparrot wrote: post #771
Meph504 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not the topic. Read the post I replied to. No matter what a piece of software will never be a human.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested software are people.

But in the same regard it is very likely at some point the ability to simulate a human mind and persona is a real possibility.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#773

Post by baby »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #483
baby wrote: post #456

I dislike this argument because it’s about limiting the most powerful technology we ever invented because it doesn’t fit well with how we established some social structures.

I think "most powerful technology we ever invented" is a controversial statement anyway -- AI is a party trick of dubious value.

Oh boy you’re going to get hit hard by this technological wave when you wake up

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#774

Post by baby »

Jtarii wrote: post #499
baby wrote: post #456

I dislike this argument because it’s about limiting the most powerful technology we ever invented because it doesn’t fit well with how we established some social structures.

>the most powerful technology we ever invented I recon agriculture and the steam engine would beat out ChatGPT by just a smidge. I would put eyeglasses/the book/vaccines/sanitation far above LLMs in technological power. Right now AI is just kinda nothing, it has potential sure, but today its just a giant pit for people to burn money in.

I disagree

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#775

Post by nearbuy »

caconym_ wrote: post #755
nearbuy wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one knows. You're asking about uncaught crimes with no victim who can report it. What data makes you think it's low?

> What data makes you think it's low? Observations of fellow readers, conversations with self- and traditionally-published authors, and some knowledge of the market? But what is low , anyway? For the sake of argument I could believe 10, 20, even 30% of all the books people read are pirated. I would be surprised if it was higher, but let's just say hypothetically it's 50%. I think that's a reasonable conservative esti…

> But what is low, anyway?

I think we're in the same ballpark here.

> Abolition of copyright will drive that monetizable share essentially to 0%

I'm in favour of copyright, though I think 70 years after the death of the author is so long it's silly. Even your grandchildren will have died of old age before your copyright ends.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#776

Post by caconym_ »

nearbuy wrote: post #775
caconym_ wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What data makes you think it's low? Observations of fellow readers, conversations with self- and traditionally-published authors, and some knowledge of the market? But what is low , anyway? For the sake of argument I could believe 10, 20, even 30% of all the books people read are pirated. I would be surprised if it was higher, but let's just say hypothetically it's 50%. I think that's a reasonable conservative esti…

> But what is low, anyway? I think we're in the same ballpark here. > Abolition of copyright will drive that monetizable share essentially to 0% I'm in favour of copyright, though I think 70 years after the death of the author is so long it's silly. Even your grandchildren will have died of old age before your copyright ends.

I think copyrights held by individuals on intellectual property they created themselves should expire when they die, maybe with some minimum period of a decade or two to cover cases where royalties etc. could support next of kin. For copyrights held by corporations, or that have otherwise changed hands for money, I'd support a greatly reduced term, maybe on the order of 20 years?

It's strange to think of something like Star Wars being in the public domain, and the effects that might have on our cultural and media landscapes, but if you step back it feels even stranger that something intangible yet so culturally important can be continuously bought and sold and exploited by people who had nothing to do with its creation (almost 50 years ago).

In that sense I probably have a lot of common ground with the "abolish copyright" people, but I feel that most of them are champing at the bit to throw the baby out with the bathwater without having any skin in the game themselves. (sorry for the idiom overload there)

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#777

Post by nearbuy »

caconym_ wrote: post #776
nearbuy wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what is low, anyway? I think we're in the same ballpark here. > Abolition of copyright will drive that monetizable share essentially to 0% I'm in favour of copyright, though I think 70 years after the death of the author is so long it's silly. Even your grandchildren will have died of old age before your copyright ends.

I think copyrights held by individuals on intellectual property they created themselves should expire when they die, maybe with some minimum period of a decade or two to cover cases where royalties etc. could support next of kin. For copyrights held by corporations, or that have otherwise changed hands for money, I'd support a greatly reduced term, maybe on the order of 20 years? It's strange to think of something li…

Star Wars almost feels a bit like it's public domain already. They've been pretty liberal with licensing their IP so we ended up with a huge number of Star Wars books, comics, games, LEGO sets, merchandise, etc. At the limit, there isn't much practical difference between a public domain work and an IP that will grant anyone a license for a very reasonable fee.

If Star Wars were public domain due to shorter copyright, the newer works and characters would still be protected. Another film studio could make a new movie based off the original trilogy, taking things in a different direction than the new movies. I'm not sure this is likely though, just like no one is rushing to make 3rd party Mickey Mouse cartoons since it entered the public domain. It probably changes things a lot less than copyright proponents worry about.

Even with books, which are much cheaper to produce than movies, the original author would probably capture most of the money from their works under shorter copyright (e.g. 25 year copyright). If you like a series from a particular author, you want new books from that author. You're not going to read A Game of Thrones and then continue with a sequel written by someone else. And as long as the author keeps writing, they're expanding the canonical world in their series with freshly copyrighted IP, and fans will primarily want new works that build on that.

And if an author writes a sequel so bad that fans abandon the series and someone else writes a better sequel that fans flock to... well, the world is better off. Even the original author may be better off if it improves the popularity of the series.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#779

Post by stackedinserter »

badlibrarian wrote: post #98
analog8374 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. I recall a thousand hours of movies. Those memories sit in my head and I pay no royalties

True, they live in your head rent free. But if you produce a derivative work, you have to pay.

Derivative work has a specific and narrow definition that's not applicable here. You don't have to pay anyone when you answer questions for money.

Re: AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

#780

Post by badlibrarian »

stackedinserter wrote: post #779
badlibrarian wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, they live in your head rent free. But if you produce a derivative work, you have to pay.

Derivative work has a specific and narrow definition that's not applicable here. You don't have to pay anyone when you answer questions for money.

OP says he has movies in his head and doesn't have to pay royalties. I told him that if he produces a derivative work, he has to pay royalties. Your comment doesn't follow, but I'll address it.

A trivia host doesn't have to pay royalties to ask questions, and the players don't have to pay royalties to answer them. If that turns into "movie night" at the bar then they have to pay royalties to screen the full film. If a professor plays clips in film class, he doesn't.

Your implication is that an LLM is little more than an brilliant film scholar or exceptionally well-read librarian, and that the matter is settled. The billions of dollars in play across a dozen active court cases say it isn't.

Post reply on HN