4 ms·

We need to figure out a post-copyright world. This sort of thing is untenable.

by wilg 3y ago

CamperBob2 3y ago
Argument for discussion: with the advent of large language models, copyright is not only untenable, it's a literal threat to the progress of civilization.
- wilg 3y ago
  I agree. Perhaps there's a productive way to leverage this to publicly (or privately) support and fund artists, authors, and others who are critical to properly training our finest computer programs.
- permo-w 3y ago
  is making bigger and better neural networks really the same as progressing civilisation? I think Hacker News is one of the few places where the majority would say yes I would say stripping artists of their rights is the opposite of progress
  - wilg 3y ago
    If AI powered tools are able to provide a lot of value (they probably will), and they require lots of data (they probably will), then it's a conversation worth having. Though artists are often very leftist and/or liberal they tend to be extremely conservative about intellectual property rights because their livelihood depends on it. This is fair enough, but unfortunately even outside of AI, intellectual property law is already overzealous. We probably need alternate funding models or something.
    - tpxl 3y ago
      Theft providing value doesn't excuse theft. These giant companies can absolutely afford to properly license their datasets, and if they don't want to license them, they can create them. Mozilla has been creating an open dataset for text-to-speech/speech-to-text for years now with thousands of contributors, why can't Google do the same?
      - zelphirkalt 3y ago
        Probably, because they did not attain actual consent by the people whose data they use.
      - CaptainFever 3y ago
        If you disallow “theft” (copying is not theft, let alone training), then as you said, only giant companies can afford to train datasets by licensing or creating data (e.g. Adobe, Getty, Disney). These statements always ignore that libre AI models exist, and rely on the weakening of copyright laws to let small creators use AI and compete against corporations that will use AI regardless, because once again, they have the resources to license giant datasets and we don’t.
      - aftbit 3y ago
        >Theft providing value doesn't excuse theft. I don't know about that. One of the biggest problems IMO with most theft is that is is net value negative. Someone steals my $500 cell phone and fences it for $100. The fence resells it for $250 to some poor sap who can't use it because it is IMSI banned. Value is destroyed. This is why many consider it okay for a starving man to steal bread to eat. His value (not starving) is greater than the cost to the baker (1 loaf of bread).
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  If you take that point of view, I hope you also apply it to everything and not just some segment that is convenient. It means for example, that no music creator, no software company, no movie maker, etc. has any copyright. I would be OK with that, but only if that was universally applying, and not just for things that can be laundered by some actually existing AI.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
wahnfrieden 3y ago
That is a post state and capital world. You're talking about good ol property rights and police backed enforcement of them. There's no logical persuasion or voting blue our way into taking the edge of copyright from those with the most gained from it. This is a tougher fight than that...
- logicchains 3y ago
  Intellectual property rights are fundamentally not "good ol' property rights". Property rights exist because when you steal someone's car, you're depriving them of the usage of that car. If you steal the words from somebody's book, you're not preventing them from still reading it. In fact enforcement of intellectual property laws actually violates traditional property rights, as it interferes with people using their hardware property freely.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    both are decisions to honor/build a society around and the police will defend both. it’s historically and today continues to be their essential purpose the property i'm talking about is more specifically 'means of production' type property, not someone's left shoe
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Property rights exist because when you steal someone’s car, you’re depriving them of the usage of that car. No, property rights exist because of a social value judgement that their existence is a net benefit. The particular structure of some aspects enforcing property rights in one class of property (tangible personal property) reflect that. (Mostly, in the Anglo-American system, this is addressed by the theft and conversion crimes and torts.) But the other main class of tangible property (real property) doesn’t really have the same nature, nor do most other elements of the broad class of intangible personal property, and the primary means of enforcing them against encroachment tend to be oriented around trespass (in common law terms, though there are special terms for it for some specific subtypes of property, such as as “infringement” for most IP rights) rather than theft/conversion, which also applies to tangible personal property (trespass to chattels).

We need to figure out a post-copyright world. This sort of thing is untenable.

by wilg 3y ago

We need to figure out a post-copyright world. This sort of thing is untenable.

Argument for discussion: with the advent of large language models, copyright is not only untenable, it's a literal threat to the progress of civilization.

wilg 3y ago
I agree. Perhaps there's a productive way to leverage this to publicly (or privately) support and fund artists, authors, and others who are critical to properly training our finest computer programs.
permo-w 3y ago
is making bigger and better neural networks really the same as progressing civilisation? I think Hacker News is one of the few places where the majority would say yes I would say stripping artists of their rights is the opposite of progress
- wilg 3y ago
  If AI powered tools are able to provide a lot of value (they probably will), and they require lots of data (they probably will), then it's a conversation worth having. Though artists are often very leftist and/or liberal they tend to be extremely conservative about intellectual property rights because their livelihood depends on it. This is fair enough, but unfortunately even outside of AI, intellectual property law is already overzealous. We probably need alternate funding models or something.
  - tpxl 3y ago
    Theft providing value doesn't excuse theft. These giant companies can absolutely afford to properly license their datasets, and if they don't want to license them, they can create them. Mozilla has been creating an open dataset for text-to-speech/speech-to-text for years now with thousands of contributors, why can't Google do the same?
    - zelphirkalt 3y ago
      Probably, because they did not attain actual consent by the people whose data they use.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      If you disallow “theft” (copying is not theft, let alone training), then as you said, only giant companies can afford to train datasets by licensing or creating data (e.g. Adobe, Getty, Disney). These statements always ignore that libre AI models exist, and rely on the weakening of copyright laws to let small creators use AI and compete against corporations that will use AI regardless, because once again, they have the resources to license giant datasets and we don’t.
    - aftbit 3y ago
      >Theft providing value doesn't excuse theft. I don't know about that. One of the biggest problems IMO with most theft is that is is net value negative. Someone steals my $500 cell phone and fences it for $100. The fence resells it for $250 to some poor sap who can't use it because it is IMSI banned. Value is destroyed. This is why many consider it okay for a starving man to steal bread to eat. His value (not starving) is greater than the cost to the baker (1 loaf of bread).
zelphirkalt 3y ago
If you take that point of view, I hope you also apply it to everything and not just some segment that is convenient. It means for example, that no music creator, no software company, no movie maker, etc. has any copyright. I would be OK with that, but only if that was universally applying, and not just for things that can be laundered by some actually existing AI.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

wahnfrieden 3y ago

That is a post state and capital world. You're talking about good ol property rights and police backed enforcement of them. There's no logical persuasion or voting blue our way into taking the edge of copyright from those with the most gained from it. This is a tougher fight than that...

logicchains 3y ago
Intellectual property rights are fundamentally not "good ol' property rights". Property rights exist because when you steal someone's car, you're depriving them of the usage of that car. If you steal the words from somebody's book, you're not preventing them from still reading it. In fact enforcement of intellectual property laws actually violates traditional property rights, as it interferes with people using their hardware property freely.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  both are decisions to honor/build a society around and the police will defend both. it’s historically and today continues to be their essential purpose the property i'm talking about is more specifically 'means of production' type property, not someone's left shoe
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Property rights exist because when you steal someone’s car, you’re depriving them of the usage of that car. No, property rights exist because of a social value judgement that their existence is a net benefit. The particular structure of some aspects enforcing property rights in one class of property (tangible personal property) reflect that. (Mostly, in the Anglo-American system, this is addressed by the theft and conversion crimes and torts.) But the other main class of tangible property (real property) doesn’t really have the same nature, nor do most other elements of the broad class of intangible personal property, and the primary means of enforcing them against encroachment tend to be oriented around trespass (in common law terms, though there are special terms for it for some specific subtypes of property, such as as “infringement” for most IP rights) rather than theft/conversion, which also applies to tangible personal property (trespass to chattels).