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

821–830 of 927 posts

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

#821

Post by derektank »

smackeyacky wrote: post #51
derektank wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't think it would be obvious. By not explicitly saying Indiana Jones when so obviously describing Indiana Jones, there is an implication present. But I think many human artists would probably ask you, "Wait, so Indiana Jones, or are you looking for something different," before immediately diving in.

This seems pretty easy to test - can we just change the prompt to specifically exclude Indiana Jones?

Late reply but I did test this and I think the results show at least some originality when explicitly directed to not copy existing characters such as Indiana Jones[1] and the Predator[2]. Some elements of the original characters creep in, the archaeologist is wearing a fedora and the distinctly more skeletal bounty hunter appears to have a few dreads despite otherwise being bald, but they are distinct.

[1] https://sora.com/g/gen_01jr152s6seqct2qzgd1dz0qh2

[2] https://sora.com/g/gen_01jr14t6v3fzk8tx00aswwt4kx

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

#822

Post by sejje »

tastyface wrote: post #163
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

A different way of looking at it: AI, by design, defaults to regurgitating the poppiest of pop culture content. Every whip-wielding archaeologist is now Harrison Ford. Every suave British spy is now Daniel Craig. With the power of AI, creativity is dead and buried.

Why does the AI have to inject the creativity? It's supposed to guess what you want and generate it. The prompts in the article make it clear the author wants Harrison Ford.

If you ask it for a female adventure-loving archaeologist with a bullwhip, you think you'll get Harrison Ford?

What if you ask for a black man? Etc etc.

You're talking about how unoriginal it is when the human has asked it in the least creative way. And it gives what you want (when the content filters don't spot it)

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

#823

Post by apersona »

ppseafield wrote: post #191
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. How is copyright stifling innovation? You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on. You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.

Copyright makes the legality of arXiv and SciHub questionable at best. It locks publicly funded research behind paywalls. It makes being able to search the law (including case law) of the US incredibly expensive. It puts a burden on platforms to be beholden to DMCA takedowns, lest the content owner go to their hosting or DNS provider, has happened to itch.io. It adds licensing fees onto public musical performances (A…

Let's separate the implementation of copyright and the concept of copyright. I don't think you would find anyone who would say the US's implementation of copyright is flawless, but the OP seems to be talking about the concept itself.

> Additionally plenty of people making videos for YouTube have had their videos demonetized and their channels even removed because of the Content ID copyright detection scheme and their three strikes rule. In some cases to a ridiculous extent - some companies will claim ownership of music that isn't theirs and either get the video taken down or take a share of the revenue.

Let's take YouTube videos as an example. If the concept of copyright doesn't exist, there is nothing stopping a YouTuber with millions more subscribers from seeing a trending video you made and uploading it themselves. Since they're the one with the most subs, they will get the most views.

The winner of the rewards will always go to the brand that people know most rather than the video makers.

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

#824

Post by apersona »

autoexec wrote: post #424
loki-ai wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a talented team would be able to make a great movie on the same theme. Saying the lack of creativity in the industry in because we can't copy things freely is completely moronic.

It's a major hindrance. For example, if I came up with an amazing creative idea for a star wars movie I couldn't do a damn thing with it unless Disney told me I could. Disney isn't likely to accept an unsolicited pitch from a total nobody who just happened to have a great idea either. I don't see how you could doubt that there are a lot of great works of art that won't ever exist because of the fact that copyright pr…

You can't do a damn thing with it not because of copyright, but because you don't have the resources to make the movie in the first place.

Copyright can't legally stop you from making a movie about wizards fighting each other with laser swords in space.

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

#825

Post by sejje »

loki-ai wrote: post #446
jim-jim-jim wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I paint a picture on a physical canvas, I can charge people to come into my house and take a look. If I bring the canvas to a park, I'm not entitled to say "s-stop looking at my painting guys!" If you're worried about your work being infinitely reproduced, you probably shouldn't work in an infinitely-reproducible medium. Digitized content is inherently worthless, and I mean that in a non-derisive way. The sooner w…

and how do you reconcile any work in software development? If someone isn’t willing to work for free, should they just not work in the field at all? Do you think software culture would really be richer?

You keep it in your house and charge people to come look at it (SaaS).

Those people sometimes look at it and build a copy (competitor) and that's okay.

You don't have to publish your code, or allow other people to run it.

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

#826

Post by apersona »

dcow wrote: post #287
kokanee wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it. These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate Party's cre…

How do restaurants work, then? You can’t copyright a recipe. Instructions can’t generally be copyrighted, otherwise someone would own the fastest route from A to B and charge every person who used it. The whole idea of intellectual property gets really weird when you try to pinpoint what exactly is being owned. I do not agree with your conjecture that big corps would win by default. Ask why would people need protecti…

> I do not agree with your conjecture that big corps would win by default.

Why wouldn't big corps win by default? They have the brand name, own the resources to make more polished version of any IP, and have better distribution channels than anyone else.

Can you tell me how this scenario won't play out?

1. Big corporation has people looking for new and trending IP.

2. Instead of buying the rights to it, they get their army of people to produce more polished versions of it.

3. Because they have branding and a better distribution channel, the money goes 100% to them.

> Ask why would people need protection from having their work stolen when the only ones welding weaponized copyright are the corporations.

People working in the field sell their copyright like Gravity Falls' Alex Hirsch: https://x.com/_AlexHirsch/status/1906915851720077617

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

#827

Post by fishpen0 »

simianparrot wrote: post #789

So many arguing that "copyright shouldn't be a thing" etc., ad nauseam, which is a fine philosophical debate. But it's also the law. And that means ChatGPT et. al. also have to follow the law. I really, really hope the multimedia-megacorps get together and class-action ChatGPT and every other closed, for-profit LLM corporation into oblivion. There should not be a two-tier legal system. If it's illegal for me, it's il…

There is more to it than copyright when you start going down the path of photorealism. As much as it is a picture of Indiana jones, it is also a picture of Harrison Ford. As fun as it is to make hilarious videos of presidents sucking ceo toes, there has to be a line.

There is a lack of consent here that runs even deeper than what copyright was traditionally made to protect. It goes further than parody. We can't flip our standards back and forth depending on who the image is made to reproduce

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

#828

Post by apersona »

csallen wrote: post #358
api wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s say I write a book or record an album and there is no copyright. How do I get paid? Musicians I suppose can tour, which is grueling but it’s something. Authors, programmers, actors, game studios, anything that’s not performed live would immediately become non-viable as a career or a business. Large corporations would make money of course, by offering all you can eat streaming feeds of everything for a monthly f…

1. There are an infinite number of careers that do not currently exist, because their business models do not make sense. I do not think it's a great idea to keep laws on the books, that limit the creativity and rights of hundreds of millions of people, just to keep a few professions afloat. 2. You greatly underestimate the creativity of a capitalistic market. For example, on the web, it's generally difficult and frow…

How does copyright limit creativity? If you want to write a new story about a boy wizard going to school, no one can legally stop you. If you want to make a new Mario-inspired platformer, no one can legally stop you.

But if you want to make money and do it from riding the brand name association of Harry Potter or Mario, they can.

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

#829

Post by autoexec »

apersona wrote: post #824
autoexec wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a major hindrance. For example, if I came up with an amazing creative idea for a star wars movie I couldn't do a damn thing with it unless Disney told me I could. Disney isn't likely to accept an unsolicited pitch from a total nobody who just happened to have a great idea either. I don't see how you could doubt that there are a lot of great works of art that won't ever exist because of the fact that copyright pr…

You can't do a damn thing with it not because of copyright, but because you don't have the resources to make the movie in the first place. Copyright can't legally stop you from making a movie about wizards fighting each other with laser swords in space.

Copyright can stop me from making a star wars movie about wizards fighting each other with laser swords in space. Even if I don't make a star wars movie, if I make a movie that makes disney feel threatened because it's close enough to being a star wars movie I could still end up losing in courts.

There are plenty of examples of copyright hurting people for creating something that wasn't exactly the same as something else which was copyrighted. Copyright is a threat to all creative works. The bigger the investment required for a creative work, the bigger the risk. For this reason, we see it a lot more often in music where the investment needed is lower than films. People have been successfully sued because they wrote a totally new song that was in the same genre as someone else's song https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...

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

#830

Post by MattGrommes »

apersona wrote: post #818
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…

> No one can legally stop you from writing your own story about a boy wizard who goes to school

This is doing exactly that, except for an image. They didn't ask for a picture of Harry Potter, they asked for an image of a boy wizard and were prevented. The actual IP holder probably didn't implement these specific restrictions but it falls into the category I'm talking about, the idea that they own everything. It shouldn't be up to the image generator to say I can't get a picture of Harry Potter, it should be up to me whether or not I try to sell that image and risk getting busted for it. That's where copyright comes into play, as far I understand.

Post reply on HN