4 ms·

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 s

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).

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).