5 ms·

The bigger argument is in the form of cost of reproduction. A human has finite time and output volume. A machine has no such limits, only compute/memory/netwo

by ethbr0 3y ago

The bigger argument is in the form of cost of reproduction. A human has finite time and output volume. A machine has no such limits, only compute/memory/network/disk. Ergo, gray areas where we could afford a human the benefit of doubt ("What? They can paint 4 in-the-style-of-Rembrandts?") produce substantially different results with machines ("Here are a million in-the-style-of-Rembrandts, produced in 30 minutes"). Whether we should permit or limit machine art is a discussion worth having -- but human copying vs machine copying is clearly a very different discussion.

pixl97 3y ago
Right, this is why we should burn the combines and go back to harvesting wheat by scythe, or we should dig ditches with spoons instead of using an excavator... The problem here is we want the system we currently have to keep working when there is really no possible way that can happen in a world of AGI. IP is already a horribly broken system that can lead to absurdities. While making IP stronger will protect people like artists (maybe) it will provide far more protection to monied corporations that can afford to buy up works, and then feed them into their AI. In the pathological cases you end up with stories like 'The Right To Read'. In a world where particular things can be created in almost infinite amounts, why will we go to such efforts to ensure they are only created in limited supply?
- ethbr0 3y ago
  > we want the system we currently have to keep working No. We want *a* working system, that probably looks very different than the previous one. But the "AI and let the chips fall where they may" crowd is being disingenuous with the "just like human copying" argument. It's not. It's fundamentally different in scale.
  - chii 3y ago
    > It's fundamentally different in scale. yes, it is. But this increase in scale is going to be something that produces progress (ala, cheap imitations of good styles that already exist). And with unprecedented amount of "generated" works, originality is going to be highly sought after, and those who do produce original content will be capable of succeeding. And yet, once they succeed, they cannot rest on their laurels as the AI will be very quick to reproduce that "originality" - therefore, forcing the artists/creatives to continuously come out with highly original works all the time.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      > originality is going to be highly sought after You and I are not seeing the same Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

by ethbr0 3y ago

pixl97 3y ago

Right, this is why we should burn the combines and go back to harvesting wheat by scythe, or we should dig ditches with spoons instead of using an excavator... The problem here is we want the system we currently have to keep working when there is really no possible way that can happen in a world of AGI. IP is already a horribly broken system that can lead to absurdities. While making IP stronger will protect people like artists (maybe) it will provide far more protection to monied corporations that can afford to buy up works, and then feed them into their AI. In the pathological cases you end up with stories like 'The Right To Read'. In a world where particular things can be created in almost infinite amounts, why will we go to such efforts to ensure they are only created in limited supply?

ethbr0 3y ago
> we want the system we currently have to keep working No. We want *a* working system, that probably looks very different than the previous one. But the "AI and let the chips fall where they may" crowd is being disingenuous with the "just like human copying" argument. It's not. It's fundamentally different in scale.
- chii 3y ago
  > It's fundamentally different in scale. yes, it is. But this increase in scale is going to be something that produces progress (ala, cheap imitations of good styles that already exist). And with unprecedented amount of "generated" works, originality is going to be highly sought after, and those who do produce original content will be capable of succeeding. And yet, once they succeed, they cannot rest on their laurels as the AI will be very quick to reproduce that "originality" - therefore, forcing the artists/creatives to continuously come out with highly original works all the time.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    > originality is going to be highly sought after You and I are not seeing the same Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon, Netflix, etc.