6 ms·

I know this is all about self preservation, but gosh I hate hindering progress. Its going to happen and AI is going to learn lyrics and how to create music, it

I know this is all about self preservation, but gosh I hate hindering progress. Its going to happen and AI is going to learn lyrics and how to create music, its inevitable. These are just roadblocks that are bad for everyone but the extreme minority. Even if one company/country bans it, in 10 years, it won't matter.

asjdflakjsdf 4y ago
I am seeing this sentiment so often online at the minute that it seems as though nobody has learned anything about DRM over the past 20 years. So many threads on reddit calling Italy "backwards" for protecting citizens data, and now people on HN expecting companies to give everything away for free because of the outcome is "inevitable"! There are a bunch of for-profit American AI companies. Why on Earth would another for-profit company, especially one based in another country, be ok with other people making money from their content. They can either look at developing their own AI platform, or build deals with the existing AI companies. It would be just plain stupid to give it all away for free, or any price that isn't determined by themselves.
- Analemma_ 4y ago
  Because (at least in America) generative AI is an obvious transformative case allowable under Fair Use, and even if courts rule otherwise, like Sci-Hub it's such an obvious net positive for humanity that it's ethical to use even in the face of IP cops demanding you stop.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > it's such an obvious net positive for humanity I think that's nowhere near obvious. But we will see. At this point, everyone is just guessing.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Companies don't have to give away everything for free. It's already free. Public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who insist on copyright so they can maintain the artificial scarcity delusion well into 2023 where AI is literally on its way to automating intellectual work. These irrelevant industries need to stop holding us all back and just disappear already.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > These irrelevant industries need to stop holding us all back and just disappear already. Like artists, sculptors, writers, photographers, narrators, musicians, composers, and so forth? The very same industries AI requires to exist for training? They will disappear. And we will be poorer for that.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Nope. People with the impulse to create will do it regardless. Sellouts without intrinsic motivation to create who are just looking to make money by creating products instead of real art? I won't mourn their disappearance at all.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        That's an assumption that has not been tested in modern times. At least in the past, an artist could sell their painting. And even if the assumption proves to be true, the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art. And no, Patreon and its ilk is not a sufficient replacement, not for full time jobs. It mostly doesn't even replace a job for the (comparatively few) people on it today. EDIT: I for one will miss movies like "Everything Everwhere All At Once", which could not have been made as an "impulse" project.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > That's an assumption that has not been tested in modern times. It's a fact as old as humanity itself. People will create because that's what people do. What isn't guaranteed is the existence of the billion dollar copyright industry. > an artist could sell their painting. Still perfectly possible to sell the physical canvas you applied paint to. > the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art So what? That's a good thing. The market is filled with cheap art that's made just to sell copies, stuff that wouldn't even exist at all if not for the profit. I don't consider that a big loss at all.
Jevon23 4y ago
Making a large profit off of other people’s work, without their permission and without compensating them, is not progress. If someone said “for the sake of progress we just REALLY need to use this GPL’d code in our proprietary closed source app”, I don’t think that would fly around here.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Making a large profit off of other people’s work, without their permission and without compensating them, is not progress. Best dynamite all the bridges because I sure haven't paid any of the (now quite-long-dead) people who put them up.
- ronsor 4y ago
  > If someone said “for the sake of progress we just REALLY need to use this GPL’d code in our proprietary closed source app”, I don’t think that would fly around here. Arguably that's because putting GPL code in a proprietary app is making a free thing closed. FWIW, I don't like proprietary AI models either, but I think open-source ones shouldn't be hampered by the copyright mafia.
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  Using content as training data is not making profit off other people work. Musicians don't pay royalties to every other musician they've ever listened to, but that's literally their training data, the brain is just a large neural network.
  - deely3 4y ago
    How? They used content as training data and now selling access to model based on this training data. How this is not "making profit off other people work"?
    - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
      You know that because you read it somewhere else, because someone put it online. Your brain took that as training data, and now you're regurgitating it, are you going to pay that person for the data your brain is using? A musician is just a big neural network, and they sell content that is nothing but the product of all their influences, of all the music they listened to. I don't see a difference between a musician making music after having listened to thousand of hours of music throughout their lives and an AI generating music. It's the same thing, in one case you have neurons made out of flesh, in the other neurons made of transistors and code.
gumballindie 4y ago
> Its going to happen and AI is going to learn lyrics and how to create music, its inevitable. Why is everyone in AI so open to stealing people's work and why do y'all think "ai" is something with a mind of its own that just runs about and does things? It's a software product and the companies owning it must play by the rules. Period.
- lezojeda 4y ago
  [dead]
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  “Companies owning it” is presumably not what the parent had in mind (or at least, not mainly). People should have access to locally-running AI just as megacorps do. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to require licensing for every little thing used to train those, much like we (hopefully) wouldn’t require people leaving the cinema to be memory-wiped to prevent them from stealing creative cues from the film they just watched, if memory wiping was a thing. > why do y'all think "ai" is something with a mind of its own that just runs about and does things? Because GPT-4 is already capable of doing this (very poorly) if incorporated into a larger system that provides it with REPLs, internet access, an initial goal, and some form of memory. GPT-5 will be more capable, and AI will only get better at this.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Remember NFTs ripping off the work of others? Same crowd.
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    Getting the same vibes to be honest. I've seen quite a few switch from crypto currencies to ai. Not sure what they think they will achieve. However the difference between ai and nfts is that ai is powerful and much needed. But there needs to be rules to the game. Also playing by these rules means better ai. It means that instead of spewing content it would actually have to learn, and the result would be a far more accurate and far more reliable output. That's where we should be.
eastbound 4y ago
We can go the other way: - Entirely remove intellectual property protection granted by copyright, - Music is freely copiable. Not like we’re making much money with it anymore. - Software is free by default. Use SAAS if you don’t want to give away your IP. Did you disclose your code? Too bad, ideas can’t be prevented from being copied. - No more patent trolls. Find another way to fund drug research. - AI can train on anything. We make a big leap forward.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  A big leap forward to what? A big regression in the joy of creativity? What a lot of AI folks don't understand is that the joy is frequently in the process itself, very seldom in the outcome/result of a process.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > is that the joy is frequently in the process itself That's fine if you prefer that. But other people prefer a different process (such as using AI), and that's totally OK.
- YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
  How naïve of you to think that AI won't be coming for SAAS next. With all the API externals, the social media activity of all your employees and a video feed through the window of one of your home-working coders, a next-gen coding AI just reverse-engineered your entire software stack. With how porous modern systems are, no back-end code worth stealing hasn't been stolen.
- hospitalJail 4y ago
  I unironically endorse this.
52-6F-62 4y ago
So much for “automate the boring things”. The mask has really come off this past year.

asjdflakjsdf 4y ago

I am seeing this sentiment so often online at the minute that it seems as though nobody has learned anything about DRM over the past 20 years. So many threads on reddit calling Italy "backwards" for protecting citizens data, and now people on HN expecting companies to give everything away for free because of the outcome is "inevitable"! There are a bunch of for-profit American AI companies. Why on Earth would another for-profit company, especially one based in another country, be ok with other people making money from their content. They can either look at developing their own AI platform, or build deals with the existing AI companies. It would be just plain stupid to give it all away for free, or any price that isn't determined by themselves.

Analemma_ 4y ago
Because (at least in America) generative AI is an obvious transformative case allowable under Fair Use, and even if courts rule otherwise, like Sci-Hub it's such an obvious net positive for humanity that it's ethical to use even in the face of IP cops demanding you stop.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > it's such an obvious net positive for humanity I think that's nowhere near obvious. But we will see. At this point, everyone is just guessing.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Companies don't have to give away everything for free. It's already free. Public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who insist on copyright so they can maintain the artificial scarcity delusion well into 2023 where AI is literally on its way to automating intellectual work. These irrelevant industries need to stop holding us all back and just disappear already.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > These irrelevant industries need to stop holding us all back and just disappear already. Like artists, sculptors, writers, photographers, narrators, musicians, composers, and so forth? The very same industries AI requires to exist for training? They will disappear. And we will be poorer for that.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Nope. People with the impulse to create will do it regardless. Sellouts without intrinsic motivation to create who are just looking to make money by creating products instead of real art? I won't mourn their disappearance at all.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      That's an assumption that has not been tested in modern times. At least in the past, an artist could sell their painting. And even if the assumption proves to be true, the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art. And no, Patreon and its ilk is not a sufficient replacement, not for full time jobs. It mostly doesn't even replace a job for the (comparatively few) people on it today. EDIT: I for one will miss movies like "Everything Everwhere All At Once", which could not have been made as an "impulse" project.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > That's an assumption that has not been tested in modern times. It's a fact as old as humanity itself. People will create because that's what people do. What isn't guaranteed is the existence of the billion dollar copyright industry. > an artist could sell their painting. Still perfectly possible to sell the physical canvas you applied paint to. > the volume will decrease dramatically as people are no longer allowed to make a living to create their art So what? That's a good thing. The market is filled with cheap art that's made just to sell copies, stuff that wouldn't even exist at all if not for the profit. I don't consider that a big loss at all.

Jevon23 4y ago

Making a large profit off of other people’s work, without their permission and without compensating them, is not progress. If someone said “for the sake of progress we just REALLY need to use this GPL’d code in our proprietary closed source app”, I don’t think that would fly around here.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> Making a large profit off of other people’s work, without their permission and without compensating them, is not progress. Best dynamite all the bridges because I sure haven't paid any of the (now quite-long-dead) people who put them up.
ronsor 4y ago
> If someone said “for the sake of progress we just REALLY need to use this GPL’d code in our proprietary closed source app”, I don’t think that would fly around here. Arguably that's because putting GPL code in a proprietary app is making a free thing closed. FWIW, I don't like proprietary AI models either, but I think open-source ones shouldn't be hampered by the copyright mafia.
FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
Using content as training data is not making profit off other people work. Musicians don't pay royalties to every other musician they've ever listened to, but that's literally their training data, the brain is just a large neural network.
- deely3 4y ago
  How? They used content as training data and now selling access to model based on this training data. How this is not "making profit off other people work"?
  - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
    You know that because you read it somewhere else, because someone put it online. Your brain took that as training data, and now you're regurgitating it, are you going to pay that person for the data your brain is using? A musician is just a big neural network, and they sell content that is nothing but the product of all their influences, of all the music they listened to. I don't see a difference between a musician making music after having listened to thousand of hours of music throughout their lives and an AI generating music. It's the same thing, in one case you have neurons made out of flesh, in the other neurons made of transistors and code.

gumballindie 4y ago

> Its going to happen and AI is going to learn lyrics and how to create music, its inevitable. Why is everyone in AI so open to stealing people's work and why do y'all think "ai" is something with a mind of its own that just runs about and does things? It's a software product and the companies owning it must play by the rules. Period.

lezojeda 4y ago
[dead]
selfhoster11 4y ago
“Companies owning it” is presumably not what the parent had in mind (or at least, not mainly). People should have access to locally-running AI just as megacorps do. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to require licensing for every little thing used to train those, much like we (hopefully) wouldn’t require people leaving the cinema to be memory-wiped to prevent them from stealing creative cues from the film they just watched, if memory wiping was a thing. > why do y'all think "ai" is something with a mind of its own that just runs about and does things? Because GPT-4 is already capable of doing this (very poorly) if incorporated into a larger system that provides it with REPLs, internet access, an initial goal, and some form of memory. GPT-5 will be more capable, and AI will only get better at this.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Remember NFTs ripping off the work of others? Same crowd.
- gumballindie 4y ago
  Getting the same vibes to be honest. I've seen quite a few switch from crypto currencies to ai. Not sure what they think they will achieve. However the difference between ai and nfts is that ai is powerful and much needed. But there needs to be rules to the game. Also playing by these rules means better ai. It means that instead of spewing content it would actually have to learn, and the result would be a far more accurate and far more reliable output. That's where we should be.

eastbound 4y ago

We can go the other way: - Entirely remove intellectual property protection granted by copyright, - Music is freely copiable. Not like we’re making much money with it anymore. - Software is free by default. Use SAAS if you don’t want to give away your IP. Did you disclose your code? Too bad, ideas can’t be prevented from being copied. - No more patent trolls. Find another way to fund drug research. - AI can train on anything. We make a big leap forward.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
A big leap forward to what? A big regression in the joy of creativity? What a lot of AI folks don't understand is that the joy is frequently in the process itself, very seldom in the outcome/result of a process.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > is that the joy is frequently in the process itself That's fine if you prefer that. But other people prefer a different process (such as using AI), and that's totally OK.
YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
How naïve of you to think that AI won't be coming for SAAS next. With all the API externals, the social media activity of all your employees and a video feed through the window of one of your home-working coders, a next-gen coding AI just reverse-engineered your entire software stack. With how porous modern systems are, no back-end code worth stealing hasn't been stolen.
hospitalJail 4y ago
I unironically endorse this.

52-6F-62 4y ago

So much for “automate the boring things”. The mask has really come off this past year.