7 ms·

Why write your thoughts on the web when AI/GPT is only going to steal and paraphrase it? Nobody sees what you write and everybody thinks GPT is the genius.

cableshaft 4y ago
Just saw something today where the wife of TotalBiscuit, who died of cancer several years ago, is contemplating deleting all of his Youtube videos[1] to prevent people from using A.I. to make him say terrible things. Did give me a bit of a pause about putting stuff out there. Although I think I'd still rather have my data be used for training A.I. than not (and I probably am already in the training data anyway, I believe I saw that one of the datasets it's been trained on was Hacker News comments). [1]: https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-videos-ai-voices-1850220650 https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-vid...
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Given that the "AI" community apparently couldn't care less about treating intellectual property rights with wanton abandon, I can't say such a response would be unwarranted. Dire circumstances call for drastic measures, as they say.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Quite a sad, but completely understandable reaction. The saddest part is probably that it's already too late to prevent people from generating TB deepfakes and other content. Cloning a voice takes half an hour if clips now, any downloaded live stream should be enough already. It's sad to see AI on a path to destroy years of collected internet content. I expect the internet archive to receive loads of takedown requests in the coming months and years because of this.
pklausler 4y ago
The general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted content needs to be discussed more thoroughly, I think.
- noogle 4y ago
  The current (legal) answer is "unclear". There are indications that training is fine, but producing and using the generated content is questionable at least. As many IP issues, it will solved only when someone will try that in court and go all the way until a verdict. Some cases are actually being processed but it might take years to get an answer.
  - sampo 4y ago
    > The general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted content > The current (legal) answer is "unclear". European Union was ahead of times for once. The 2019 copyright directive, article 4, makes it legal to scrape the web and make and keep local copies of copyrighted works, for data mining purposes. Unless the copyright holders set up a machine readable exception (such as robots.txt file). So legal in EU, "unclear" in US.
    - pklausler 4y ago
      That does not, to me, automatically imply that an "AI" lawfully regurgitating copyrighted content is a "data mining purpose".
      - News-Dog 4y ago
        Consider that an AI may cite many snippets of copyright publications into a chimera of 'Facts'. 'copyright fair use' : https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/
    - EamonnMR 4y ago
      Does OpenAI respect Robots.txt? Do we know?
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  Every time I bring this up, people accuse me of resisting progress, "the cats out of the bag", etc. It has been frustrating.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
That's why I keep my content as low quality as possible - keeps the machines humble.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  I'll just run it though an AI upscaler before I run it though the AI language model.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    We don't need an upscaler, we need an upclasser so all the ASCII Dickbutts drawn get little top hats and monocles put on them.
olalonde 4y ago
Because you can get points on Hacker News.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
raincole 4y ago
Why write your thoughts on the web when other humans are going to steal and paraphrase it? I mean... you're on HN. Don't tell me you didn't notice people often regurgitate tech influencers like Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky's thoughts.
- slg 4y ago
  Imagine a friend asks for help in a class. You can either spend some time and try to teach them the subject or let them copy off you during the exam. The former generally feels good despite taking more effort. The latter often feels bad even if it doesn't impact you negatively in any way and helps your classmate more than if you did nothing. The human to human connection that a blog or social media conversation creates feels a lot more like teaching your classmate while the AI feels a lot more like someone cheating off your work. Plus the AI didn't even bother to get your approval before copying from you. The whole thing feels ethically compromised regardless of the ultimate result.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Anonymous people regurgitate the thoughts of well-known individuals such as Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky. The fact that their thoughts are regurgitated is a testament to how well known they are already and how much their content is read by other people. Nobody is going to steal their limelight only on the basis of paraphrasing their ideas. However, if someone does write original ideas of their own, they may gain some notoriety for themselves. Now imagine that Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky were able to read everything being written by every anonymous unknown on the internet, and create content paraphrasing any and every original thought that was created by anonymous individuals at will. How do the original creators of these thoughts have any chance to succeed on their own merit, if Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky (who everyone knows already as sources of ideas) are able to write the same stuff as soon as the anonymous person has made it public?
  - meh8881 4y ago
Swizec 4y ago
Becoming part of the cultural lexicon is the ultimate goal of thought leadership. Just look at how many people say stuff like “Two women can’t make a baby in 4.5 months”. Someone (Brooks) had to invent, write down, and popularize that analogy.
JohnFen 4y ago
This was the place I reached. I'm not concerned about "stealing", exactly, but I don't want to contribute to this technology. I think my days of sharing things freely on the web are over.
nodemaker 4y ago
I would like to make the opposite argument. All these days I didnt share my thoughts because everyone else was and my voice would be drowned in a sea of voices. In post GPT4 era its easier to stand out if your thoughts are actually original and refreshing because most people sound like their thoughts have been written by GPT. To rephrase it another way, the reign of the conformist ends here and the reign of the contrarian begins now.
- EamonnMR 4y ago
  Or just the reign of brevity. Sheer volume is no longer impressive.
  - nodemaker 4y ago
    Great point. More volume in explaining the same thought is more GPT like.
- lupire 4y ago
  Your ideas are low probability autocomplete. GPT wants popular ideas, not novel ideas.
  - nodemaker 4y ago
    I was trying to say that what most people say is mostly unoriginal and is very reminiscent of GPT style writing. What data GPT trains on or pays attention to is another question.
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  A lovely sentiment in theory, but Waldo is still perniciously difficult to find even though he dresses differently from every other character.
  - nodemaker 4y ago
    What if all characters other than waldo were just dressing the same because they were trying to ape each other to get fictitious points on social forums. Internet has trained an entire generation to make arguments to get validation on social media that definitely reflects in the ideas that are put forward.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
So maybe only post dumb and incorrect information. Train it to be wrong on purpose, for a joke.

cableshaft 4y ago

Just saw something today where the wife of TotalBiscuit, who died of cancer several years ago, is contemplating deleting all of his Youtube videos[1] to prevent people from using A.I. to make him say terrible things. Did give me a bit of a pause about putting stuff out there. Although I think I'd still rather have my data be used for training A.I. than not (and I probably am already in the training data anyway, I believe I saw that one of the datasets it's been trained on was Hacker News comments). [1]: https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-videos-ai-voices-1850220650 https://kotaku.com/totalbiscuit-john-bain-youtube-delete-vid...

Dalewyn 4y ago
Given that the "AI" community apparently couldn't care less about treating intellectual property rights with wanton abandon, I can't say such a response would be unwarranted. Dire circumstances call for drastic measures, as they say.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Quite a sad, but completely understandable reaction. The saddest part is probably that it's already too late to prevent people from generating TB deepfakes and other content. Cloning a voice takes half an hour if clips now, any downloaded live stream should be enough already. It's sad to see AI on a path to destroy years of collected internet content. I expect the internet archive to receive loads of takedown requests in the coming months and years because of this.

pklausler 4y ago

The general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted content needs to be discussed more thoroughly, I think.

noogle 4y ago
The current (legal) answer is "unclear". There are indications that training is fine, but producing and using the generated content is questionable at least. As many IP issues, it will solved only when someone will try that in court and go all the way until a verdict. Some cases are actually being processed but it might take years to get an answer.
- sampo 4y ago
  > The general problem of "AI"s being trained on copyrighted content > The current (legal) answer is "unclear". European Union was ahead of times for once. The 2019 copyright directive, article 4, makes it legal to scrape the web and make and keep local copies of copyrighted works, for data mining purposes. Unless the copyright holders set up a machine readable exception (such as robots.txt file). So legal in EU, "unclear" in US.
  - pklausler 4y ago
    That does not, to me, automatically imply that an "AI" lawfully regurgitating copyrighted content is a "data mining purpose".
    - News-Dog 4y ago
      Consider that an AI may cite many snippets of copyright publications into a chimera of 'Facts'. 'copyright fair use' : https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/
  - EamonnMR 4y ago
    Does OpenAI respect Robots.txt? Do we know?
bluefirebrand 4y ago
Every time I bring this up, people accuse me of resisting progress, "the cats out of the bag", etc. It has been frustrating.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

That's why I keep my content as low quality as possible - keeps the machines humble.

ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
I'll just run it though an AI upscaler before I run it though the AI language model.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  We don't need an upscaler, we need an upclasser so all the ASCII Dickbutts drawn get little top hats and monocles put on them.

olalonde 4y ago

Because you can get points on Hacker News.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

raincole 4y ago

Why write your thoughts on the web when other humans are going to steal and paraphrase it? I mean... you're on HN. Don't tell me you didn't notice people often regurgitate tech influencers like Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky's thoughts.

slg 4y ago
Imagine a friend asks for help in a class. You can either spend some time and try to teach them the subject or let them copy off you during the exam. The former generally feels good despite taking more effort. The latter often feels bad even if it doesn't impact you negatively in any way and helps your classmate more than if you did nothing. The human to human connection that a blog or social media conversation creates feels a lot more like teaching your classmate while the AI feels a lot more like someone cheating off your work. Plus the AI didn't even bother to get your approval before copying from you. The whole thing feels ethically compromised regardless of the ultimate result.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Anonymous people regurgitate the thoughts of well-known individuals such as Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky. The fact that their thoughts are regurgitated is a testament to how well known they are already and how much their content is read by other people. Nobody is going to steal their limelight only on the basis of paraphrasing their ideas. However, if someone does write original ideas of their own, they may gain some notoriety for themselves. Now imagine that Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky were able to read everything being written by every anonymous unknown on the internet, and create content paraphrasing any and every original thought that was created by anonymous individuals at will. How do the original creators of these thoughts have any chance to succeed on their own merit, if Paul Graham and Joel Spolsky (who everyone knows already as sources of ideas) are able to write the same stuff as soon as the anonymous person has made it public?
- meh8881 4y ago

Swizec 4y ago

Becoming part of the cultural lexicon is the ultimate goal of thought leadership. Just look at how many people say stuff like “Two women can’t make a baby in 4.5 months”. Someone (Brooks) had to invent, write down, and popularize that analogy.

JohnFen 4y ago

This was the place I reached. I'm not concerned about "stealing", exactly, but I don't want to contribute to this technology. I think my days of sharing things freely on the web are over.

nodemaker 4y ago

I would like to make the opposite argument. All these days I didnt share my thoughts because everyone else was and my voice would be drowned in a sea of voices. In post GPT4 era its easier to stand out if your thoughts are actually original and refreshing because most people sound like their thoughts have been written by GPT. To rephrase it another way, the reign of the conformist ends here and the reign of the contrarian begins now.

EamonnMR 4y ago
Or just the reign of brevity. Sheer volume is no longer impressive.
- nodemaker 4y ago
  Great point. More volume in explaining the same thought is more GPT like.
lupire 4y ago
Your ideas are low probability autocomplete. GPT wants popular ideas, not novel ideas.
- nodemaker 4y ago
  I was trying to say that what most people say is mostly unoriginal and is very reminiscent of GPT style writing. What data GPT trains on or pays attention to is another question.
throwaway675309 4y ago
A lovely sentiment in theory, but Waldo is still perniciously difficult to find even though he dresses differently from every other character.
- nodemaker 4y ago
  What if all characters other than waldo were just dressing the same because they were trying to ape each other to get fictitious points on social forums. Internet has trained an entire generation to make arguments to get validation on social media that definitely reflects in the ideas that are put forward.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

So maybe only post dumb and incorrect information. Train it to be wrong on purpose, for a joke.