5 ms·
> Starve the machine, it doesn't exist without having your work to interpolate. But again… aren’t people the same way? Noone exists in isolation. The Sir Isaac
by jjcon 4y ago
> Starve the machine, it doesn't exist without having your work to interpolate.
But again… aren’t people the same way? Noone exists in isolation. The Sir Isaac Newton quote comes to mine:
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”
Edit: to be clear - these algorithms are specifically non-linear and are a far cry from ‘linear interpolation’. Yes they do involve matrix multiplication that does not make them interpolaters unless you want to water down the meaning of interpolation to be so generic it loses its meaning. Having said all that - the sophistication of the algorithm is beyond the point here as long as what they are generating is substantially transformative (which >99% of the possible outputs are legally speaking).
- bugfix-66 4y agoAre you foolishly suggesting that Sir Isaac Newton was just aggregating and interpolating others' work? Like a feed-forward chain of matrix multiplications, trained to predict its training data? No, of course you weren't. That would be FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
- jjcon 4y agoYes… we all do that every day. Humans don’t exist in isolation, we build and learn from other’s accomplishments from the wheel to the printing press to the computer. Modern impressionists don’t owe royalties to Monet but they certainly draw from and learn from his contributions to the art world. Brand new material from art algorithms (frankly regardless of their sophistication) certainly deserve and fall under this same legal treatment.
- bugfix-66 4y ago
- jjcon 4y ago> You just don't understand the math. This is not in good faith, please read HN rules. Rather than attack me (calling me foolish, swearing at me) why don’t you rebut my ideas and have a conversation if you actually have something to contribute. I’ve read the papers, I’ve worked personally with these systems. I understand them just fine. Notice that I said earlier: “regardless of how simple they are”. I understand you are trying to water them down to be simple interpolation which they definitely are not but even if they were that simple it wouldn’t change the legal calculus here one bit. New art is being generated (far beyond any ‘transformative’ legal test precedent) and any new art that is substantively different from its inputs is legally protectable.
- TOMDM 4y agoThat or they do understand the math and they think what's going on in our own minds may not be that special.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y agoPeople are the same, yes, but corporations aren’t people.
- jjcon 4y agoCertainly, don’t mean to imply they are (legal distinctions aside). A person can create an algorithm (or use an algorithm) and create new things, even works of art.
- wiseowise 4y agoEthical meat business (single farm, limited scope) = good, industrial meat grinder (huge factories) = bad.
- jjcon 4y agoSo is any scaled up process unethical or is there another comparison you are trying to go for here? Notably in your example both are certainly legal just varied by the level of controversy around them and on that level I would agree. Scaled up processes do tend to attract more controversy.
- wiseowise 4y ago> So is any scaled up process unethical If it abuses someone - yes.