3 ms·

> There's nothing inevitable about it. Everything you can come up with as a "solution" is really just a stop gap measure. Instead of specifying the style by na

> There's nothing inevitable about it. Everything you can come up with as a "solution" is really just a stop gap measure. Instead of specifying the style by name, you could specify it by example image. Instead of training the AI on her images directly, you could train a second generation AI on images drawn in that style generated by another AI that was trained on her images. Thus your second generation AI would be free of any copyrighted work. And of course the whole copyright thing only comes into play when people redistribute the AI. If AI is easy to train yourself locally, even that doesn't matter anymore. If you want to go all Butlerian Jihad on the world, you might be able to stop it. As long as AI is allowed, this ain't going away, it's only getting easier, cheaper and faster.

happymellon 4y ago
I'm pretty sure if you steal a diamond from a diamond thief it is still considered theft from the original owner. Your "indirection" hasn't ever been a valid argument.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  In fact, in that case, the indirection does the opposite of protect: even receiving the diamond from the original thief as a gift is illegal.
- anhner 4y ago
  Except you're not stealing anything and the "thief" didn't steal anything, either. You both just made a copy.
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
For all we know, this could already be happening. Every digital image produced yesterday could have been AI-generated for all anyone knows. The original artist in this story could already be using AI to create their own work. Of course, I don't actually believe that's what's happening in this case, but the fact that it could means it's probably impossible to return this genie to its lamp.
mihaic 4y ago
It honestly sounds like you're making a good argument for a Butlerian Jihad in that case.
- macrolime 4y ago
  HN suddenly filled with a bunch of crazy luddites. Why don't we instill the death penalty for artists who has taken inspiration from other artists while we're at it.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    I know right? I think all those FBI warnings worked maybe, and the new generation of geeks think IP is actually a moral thing instead of a corporate money-grab. Also, Herbert wasn't against AI I don't think. I suspect he simply recognized he couldn't comprehend the world that far in the future if AI was a part of it. Instead, he used space magic to explore his very present reality of resource wars, and went on to make a point I'm not sure I understand, about too much political order and resultant stagnation causing self annihilation.
  - mihaic 4y ago
    I was joking, but HN at the same time is filled with people that believe regulation only stifles innovation. So just because AI is inevitable doesn't mean that we should abandon all regulation. There would be good merit in slowing down some progress, so we can actually maintain a good transition to new industries.

happymellon 4y ago

I'm pretty sure if you steal a diamond from a diamond thief it is still considered theft from the original owner. Your "indirection" hasn't ever been a valid argument.

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
In fact, in that case, the indirection does the opposite of protect: even receiving the diamond from the original thief as a gift is illegal.
anhner 4y ago
Except you're not stealing anything and the "thief" didn't steal anything, either. You both just made a copy.

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago

For all we know, this could already be happening. Every digital image produced yesterday could have been AI-generated for all anyone knows. The original artist in this story could already be using AI to create their own work. Of course, I don't actually believe that's what's happening in this case, but the fact that it could means it's probably impossible to return this genie to its lamp.

mihaic 4y ago

It honestly sounds like you're making a good argument for a Butlerian Jihad in that case.

macrolime 4y ago
HN suddenly filled with a bunch of crazy luddites. Why don't we instill the death penalty for artists who has taken inspiration from other artists while we're at it.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  I know right? I think all those FBI warnings worked maybe, and the new generation of geeks think IP is actually a moral thing instead of a corporate money-grab. Also, Herbert wasn't against AI I don't think. I suspect he simply recognized he couldn't comprehend the world that far in the future if AI was a part of it. Instead, he used space magic to explore his very present reality of resource wars, and went on to make a point I'm not sure I understand, about too much political order and resultant stagnation causing self annihilation.
- mihaic 4y ago
  I was joking, but HN at the same time is filled with people that believe regulation only stifles innovation. So just because AI is inevitable doesn't mean that we should abandon all regulation. There would be good merit in slowing down some progress, so we can actually maintain a good transition to new industries.