Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#811

Post by munk-a »

sejje wrote: post #791
munk-a wrote: post #766

The article ends with... > Does the growth of AI have to bring with it the tacit or even explicit encouragement of intellectual theft? And like, yes, 100% - what else is AI but a tool for taking other people's work and reassembling it into a product for you without needing to pay someone. Do you want an awesome studio ghibli'd version of yourself? There are thousands of artists online that you could commission for a…

> what else is AI but a tool for taking other people's work and reassembling it into a product for you Well, what I'd like it to be is a tool for generating what I've asked it for, which has nothing to do with other people's work. I've been asking for video game sprites/avatars, for instance. It's presumably trained on lots of images of video games, but I'm not trying to rip those off. I want generic images. > we go…

I have a fundamental issue with the concept of large platform social media. Companies like Meta love to complain about the impossibility of moderating such huge public spaces - and they aren't lying, it's an immense issue - if you ever moderated a small forum you're well aware of the pain that a troll or two can cause you.

But they chose to create such an unscalable line of business, it never existed before because everyone realized it wasn't possible. It might just be that some of the AI enabled businesses aren't realistic and profitable.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#812

Post by djoldman »

capnrefsmmat wrote: post #769
djoldman wrote: post #332

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…

For what it's worth, this is a uniquely American view of copyright: > The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. In Europe, particularly France, copyright arose for a very different reason: to protect an author's moral rights as the creator of the work. It was seen as immoral to allow someone's work -- their intellectual…

That's an interesting perspective, and yes wholly foreign to my very American economics influenced background.

Are the origins the same when looking at other intellectual property like patents?

How did they deal with quoting and/or critiquing other's ideas? Did they allow limited quotation? What about parody and satire?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#813

Post by apersona »

whycome wrote: post #775
GPerson wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you make no argument to justify your unfounded claim, I’ll simply respond by informing you that these (obviously) are not remotely similar. To claim they are indicates some kind of deep disrespect for your fellow human beings. You could not tell the difference between taking a screen shot of the Mona Lisa and spending a lifetime to perfect the art of painting and then putting years of effort into painting it.

> then putting years of effort into painting it. Which efforts do we decide deserve compensation? We collectively create so many useful things. People come up with new words to describe a concept and when it's apt, it's widely adopted. That brilliant idea is the culmination of all the other work they've been putting in. But others get to use the word and benefit from it. Indigenous farmers put hundreds of years of ef…

> We have millions of teachers going above and beyond expectations. We have mothers and caregivers. We have comedians crafting jokes for comedy and they have no ability to protect those jokes. We have brilliant chefs creating recipes after years of work, experience, and effort and they too don't have protections.

I agree with this, but why is your proposed solution to remove protections from everyone instead of giving everyone else protections? People who put in work should be rewarded.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#814

Post by barrkel »

jl6 wrote: post #634
barrkel wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument works against you. The probability of a long tail of revenue is even less likely than a major hit, so it necessarily has less weight in any decision to swing for the fences. Producers don't invest in movies for hypothetical revenues in 20 years time. If it doesn't pay off soon after release, it's written off as a loss. Revenues in 100 years time are completely irrelevant.

Actually I think long tail revenue is quite well correlated with a property being a hit. Netflix paid $500m for the rights to Seinfeld 20 years after the show ended. Star Wars is still huge, nearly 50 years after the release of the original. Disney in general has ruthlessly mined its back catalog; they just printed another $700m from a Lion King prequel, whose value lay largely in the good will still hanging over fro…

Are the people better off because of these properties? What about the counterfactual, where there are more Star Wars stories by more varied producers?

That they are valuable speaks to market inefficiency. Where is the consumer surplus?

Seinfeld wasn't greenlit due to Netflix streaming rights. Better Lion King adaptations might have been made instead.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#815

Post by rdtsc »

saaaaaam wrote: post #788
rdtsc wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The likeness of Indiana Jones, as a character, is owned by Disney If they show that image to a jury they’ll have no issues convincing them the LLM is infringing. Moreover if the LLM creators are charging for it, per token or whatever, they are profiting from it. Yes are there jurisdictions were this won’t work and but I think in US Disney lawyers could make viable argument.

I wasn’t talking about LLMs, I was talking about human artists. With the LLM it would be nothing to do with likeness, it would be to do with the copyright in the image, the film, video or photograph. The image captures the likeness but the infringement would not be around the likeness.

> I wasn’t talking about LLMs

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was thinking of LLMs mostly.

> With the LLM it would be nothing to do with likeness, it would be to do with the copyright in the image

I guess I don't see why it wouldn't be about a character's likeness. It's not just a generic stock character, as an idea but it has enough distinctive characteristics, has a particular style hat, uses a whip. Showing that image to any jury and they'll say this is Indy. Yeah there are trademarks as well and both can apply to characters.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#816

Post by umbra07 »

kazinator wrote: post #762
lazyasciiart wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean "20 years after you die". That seems like a perfectly rational way to deal with people who want to be buried in their gold and jewels in a pyramid.

OK, so you can have your dad's piano for 20 years after he dies, after that it's public property.

Some people would surprisingly agree with that.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#817

Post by simpaticoder »

thesuitonym wrote: post #753
simpaticoder wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment inspires me to write an essay titled "What's wrong with hypocrisy?" because it seems like no-one really cares about it anymore. It's like the concept itself has lost meaning. Hypocrisy a big, abstract word that has the audacity to refer to other big abstract words like "character" and "virtue" and "fairness". Now many people accused of hypocrisy say "so what?". What's going on there? It has the feel of a…

The worst part about this trend toward hypocrisy acceptance is that nobody cares when you point it out. This empowers the hypocrite to answer with "So what?" because they know they will face absolutely no consequences. In politics, business, and even personal life, most people have everything to gain and very little to lose*. And our current hyper-individualistic society has only exacerbated the issue. "Who cares if…

Yes, a lack of disincentive to hypocrisy and, in fact, considerable disincentive to pointing it out, seems to be the case. Why? From a utilitarian perspective, at the societal level hypocrisy undermines the "cooperate" Nash equilibrium; at the individual level, it undermines "conscience". The question we might ask is how did we lose conscience? If psychological egoism is the default "philsophy" of humans (and I think that it is, just as "autocracy" is the default governing system), then the better question is how did we get it and maintain it in the first place? In an ideal world you get to do tests, where one group's values are tested against another group with different values to see which group is stronger. An example of this is with war - WWII was liberalism vs fascism, and the Cold War was liberalism vs communism. We won both. So what happened? Could it be that liberalism collapses on its own when it's not measured against an alternative?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#818

Post by apersona »

MattGrommes wrote: post #222

Corporations would love for everybody to believe they own and control every single instance of any audio or visual output they create but that's just not true. This idea that they own the very idea of 'boy wizard who goes to school' is insane and plays right into this flawed and pernicious idea. Copyright is important but does/should not extend to every time I want to print out a picture of a boy wizard for my kid. W…

I think you have a misunderstanding of what's copyrightable.

> This idea that they own the very idea of 'boy wizard who goes to school' is insane and plays right into this flawed and pernicious idea.

Copyright protects an expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. No one can legally stop you from writing your own story about a boy wizard who goes to school.

Nintendo fan games can be released (even sold) if they changed it up a bit so they're no longer associated with that IP.

> Copyright is important but does/should not extend to every time I want to print out a picture of a boy wizard for my kid.

You can. No one will sue you. No one will send you a cease and desist. It happens when you try to print Harry Potter and try to make a business out of it.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#820

Post by egypturnash »

jimmaswell wrote: post #780
egypturnash wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would prefer a world where we can use the skills we have spent a lifetime honing without having to compete with some asshole taking everything we’ve shared and stuffing it into a machine that spits out soulless clones of our work without any acknowledgment of our existence.

This could a be verbatim quote from a seamstress talking about looms.

Yes. The Luddites had some pretty good ideas about resisting the centralization of profits into the hands of the people who owned the machines who took over their jobs, really. So did the French Revolution.
Post reply on HN