4 ms·

I hope the law will converge to this: As a human, I don't need a license to look and get inspired by art. But I am not allowed to feed that same data to a machi

by rafale 4y ago

I hope the law will converge to this: As a human, I don't need a license to look and get inspired by art. But I am not allowed to feed that same data to a machine as a training dataset without proper authorization from the owner.

Karunamon 4y ago
I hope the exact opposite. AI, including AGI if we ever get there, cannot be allowed to be strangled in its crib by artificially limiting the information it can learn from in the name of IP maximalism. IP law already goes way too far, the line should be drawn here.
- troyvit 4y ago
  If you want new art you probably want some form of IP. What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines?
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Love of their craft. The same reason anybody undertakes any creative endeavor without charging for it. I admit my position is a bit extreme, but I would like to see the concept of IP abolished as it has become an abusive dead weight on culture. More moderately, all art is derivative at the end of the day. None of it was created ex nihilo. We already have legal guardrails for direct reproduction of specific characters and specific pieces, and that is plenty. The fact that maximalists want to kill a nascent technology by restricting the right to learn from, something that even our extremely slanted laws have carveouts for, is nothing short of offensive.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    totally ludicrous and hard to believe you actually think this. please take a glance at all of human history.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 4y ago
    If the things that Stable Diffusion produces isn't art, then new art will be made in the same way it was made before copyright existed (patronage). If it is art, then it will be made both by patronage and by people saying: "Hey StableChatSiri, make me some art." (People will still do the later even if it doesn't count as art). Hm. Thinking of patrons, does anyone know how many artists and sculptors there were in 1710 England?
  - wvenable 4y ago
    It becomes harder and harder to create new art when every art style, every melody, every plot point is owned by someone else and you're prevented from using it.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Who cares? Seriously. The technology is far more important than their little incentives. Copyright has already destroyed computer freedom and the internet. It can't be allowed to destroy yet another awesome innovation. I keep programming computers just because I like it. Maybe they'll keep creating too for the same reasons. Maybe they won't. It's irrelevant either way.
    - troyvit 4y ago
      Really? I have little problem with computer freedom and if the internet was destroyed you wouldn't be able to leave comments on HN. The nihilistic feeling that it's irrelevant whether new art is created kindof proves my point.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Many people create art with the only incentive is that they want to. 3.3 million guitars were sold in the US in 2021. Many of those will never be used outside of a bedroom.
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    why does art have to be commercial at all? artmakers will art, with or without compensation.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    > What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines? Because when I have access to these tools I will make better art than the technocrat with access to these tools?
    - troyvit 4y ago
      But then are you still an artist or are you now a technocrat?
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        An artist. You’ve got a lot of knots to untangle.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  The technology behind AI and AGI does not depend on copyrighted work. If the models are trained on original work, public domain works, or extremely permissively licensed work (CC0, WTFPL) then there simply is no IP conflict. The use of including copyrighted materials in the trained model was a choice, not some obvious fact about the nature of AI. All of this could've been avoided if the data set did not include unlicensed work in the first place.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Remember that, at least in this country and I believe in all countries who signed onto the Berne Convention, copyright is the default. If your AI is limited to only training on the paucity of explicitly permissibly licensed/public domain content (and as I think about it more, this would only apply to things that are permissibly licensed without an attribution requirement, which is something there is no meaningful way to do in a model like the one we are discussing) your AI will not be very useful. With that in mind, I would argue that yes, it absolutely is an obvious fact about its nature.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 4y ago
I hope this technology will become so ubiquitous that laws and "proper authorization" won't matter.
Ukv 4y ago
I'd rather not risk stunting progress in areas like language translation, malware scanning, DDOS prevention, spam filtering, product defect detection, scientific data analysis, autonomous vehicles, voice dictation, narration/text-to-speech engines, drug discovery, protein folding, optimization in production lines/agriculture/logistics, detecting seizures and falls, weather forecasting and early-warning systems, etc. just to let Getty Images have what they feel entitled to. Best outcome in my opinion would be for the output to be judged on a case-by-case basis, like human works are, not for machine learning on data without "proper authorization from the owner" to inherently count as infringement.

by rafale 4y ago

Karunamon 4y ago

I hope the exact opposite. AI, including AGI if we ever get there, cannot be allowed to be strangled in its crib by artificially limiting the information it can learn from in the name of IP maximalism. IP law already goes way too far, the line should be drawn here.

troyvit 4y ago
If you want new art you probably want some form of IP. What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines?
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Love of their craft. The same reason anybody undertakes any creative endeavor without charging for it. I admit my position is a bit extreme, but I would like to see the concept of IP abolished as it has become an abusive dead weight on culture. More moderately, all art is derivative at the end of the day. None of it was created ex nihilo. We already have legal guardrails for direct reproduction of specific characters and specific pieces, and that is plenty. The fact that maximalists want to kill a nascent technology by restricting the right to learn from, something that even our extremely slanted laws have carveouts for, is nothing short of offensive.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  totally ludicrous and hard to believe you actually think this. please take a glance at all of human history.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 4y ago
  If the things that Stable Diffusion produces isn't art, then new art will be made in the same way it was made before copyright existed (patronage). If it is art, then it will be made both by patronage and by people saying: "Hey StableChatSiri, make me some art." (People will still do the later even if it doesn't count as art). Hm. Thinking of patrons, does anyone know how many artists and sculptors there were in 1710 England?
- wvenable 4y ago
  It becomes harder and harder to create new art when every art style, every melody, every plot point is owned by someone else and you're prevented from using it.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Who cares? Seriously. The technology is far more important than their little incentives. Copyright has already destroyed computer freedom and the internet. It can't be allowed to destroy yet another awesome innovation. I keep programming computers just because I like it. Maybe they'll keep creating too for the same reasons. Maybe they won't. It's irrelevant either way.
  - troyvit 4y ago
    Really? I have little problem with computer freedom and if the internet was destroyed you wouldn't be able to leave comments on HN. The nihilistic feeling that it's irrelevant whether new art is created kindof proves my point.
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Many people create art with the only incentive is that they want to. 3.3 million guitars were sold in the US in 2021. Many of those will never be used outside of a bedroom.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  why does art have to be commercial at all? artmakers will art, with or without compensation.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  > What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines? Because when I have access to these tools I will make better art than the technocrat with access to these tools?
  - troyvit 4y ago
    But then are you still an artist or are you now a technocrat?
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      An artist. You’ve got a lot of knots to untangle.
jeroenhd 4y ago
The technology behind AI and AGI does not depend on copyrighted work. If the models are trained on original work, public domain works, or extremely permissively licensed work (CC0, WTFPL) then there simply is no IP conflict. The use of including copyrighted materials in the trained model was a choice, not some obvious fact about the nature of AI. All of this could've been avoided if the data set did not include unlicensed work in the first place.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Remember that, at least in this country and I believe in all countries who signed onto the Berne Convention, copyright is the default. If your AI is limited to only training on the paucity of explicitly permissibly licensed/public domain content (and as I think about it more, this would only apply to things that are permissibly licensed without an attribution requirement, which is something there is no meaningful way to do in a model like the one we are discussing) your AI will not be very useful. With that in mind, I would argue that yes, it absolutely is an obvious fact about its nature.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 4y ago

I hope this technology will become so ubiquitous that laws and "proper authorization" won't matter.

Ukv 4y ago

I'd rather not risk stunting progress in areas like language translation, malware scanning, DDOS prevention, spam filtering, product defect detection, scientific data analysis, autonomous vehicles, voice dictation, narration/text-to-speech engines, drug discovery, protein folding, optimization in production lines/agriculture/logistics, detecting seizures and falls, weather forecasting and early-warning systems, etc. just to let Getty Images have what they feel entitled to. Best outcome in my opinion would be for the output to be judged on a case-by-case basis, like human works are, not for machine learning on data without "proper authorization from the owner" to inherently count as infringement.