5 ms·

I think the copyright of the training material should be propagated, and such a system can not be allowed to compete in the market without attributing and recom

by NoZZz 3y ago

I think the copyright of the training material should be propagated, and such a system can not be allowed to compete in the market without attributing and recompensating the authors. ;)

kelseyfrog 3y ago
This should apply to human authorship as well.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  the four largest economies of the world have very different rules for this -- it is going to be settled today on a chat board?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  It does. Plagiarism is a thing.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    No, I mean any copywritable material that enters the human mind.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      You're kinda skipping past a whole lot to just equivocate that the human mind is comparable to an AI model
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        In every way that interacts with copyright, yes. In the ways that it doesn't interact with copyright, it's irrelevant.
        freejazz 3y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't think "but copyright" gets you any further than you were before
- freejazz 3y ago
  Isn't that already true when human's do collage?
mminer237 3y ago
So every DALL·E, Stable Diffusion, and Firefly image should be jointly and equally owned by millions of artists? All of GPT's and LLaMA's outputs should be jointly and equally owned by essentially everyone who has ever written publicly online? I can see how compensating the original artists would be desired, but I can't see how that wouldn't completely kill the AI space. There's just no way to develop a suitable set of training data from only people who have signed a licensing agreement. Edit: And to be clear, CC BY-SA would not be a suitable licensing agreement, so things like Stack Overflow and Codidact and Wikipedia would be completely off-limits.
- pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
  > I can't see how that wouldn't completely kill the AI space. As if that's a bad thing
  - brigadier132 3y ago
    Do you consider all automation to be bad?
  - areoform 3y ago
    I'd like to express my shock at reading something so uninformed and poorly thought out in a place like HN. HN goes through its phases; just as the moon waxes and wanes, but this anti-AI, primitivist phase is quite annoying. If you do not seek progress for humanity and the construction of things that are more meaningful. If you do not have the hacker spirit and want to explore. If you don't want to create just to see what could be... Maybe you're in the wrong place. . And make no mistake, this is poorly thought out. This technology is never going away. Trying to ban generative AI is an attempt in banning math. Far more powerful people have tried for far more compelling reasons to do the same for a very long time. And when all was said and done, their crusade came undone. . The anti-AI arguments quickly crumble when you start asking questions like, What was the state of artists before this? Did all artists enjoy a high standard of life in every part of the world? Or, were they barely scraping by on Fiverr? In a world where copyright is required to train generative AI, who will be the only ones who could train any meaningful system? What happens if we forbid people from learning and building on art that is already copyrighted? What happens when people can copyright style? If only one band owned the copyright on Grunge and that whole Nirvana thing was just a non-starter? What happens if non-human entities (like a LLC or S-corp) can't meaningfully participate in artistic creation? . Based on how the law currently stands, it is the EFF's estimate that there is no way to modify the law to forbid a system from learning and creating derivative works without opening a can of worms and impacting human creativity. Fundamentally, the point of creative culture is that we add onto each other and that we stand on the shoulders of giants. An artist doesn't have to figure out how to draw in perspective because all the clever people before us have already thought it through for us. An artist doesn't have to figure out how to soften light, because others have done it before. All culture is fundamentally additive and intellectual property is an artificial restriction that has caused broader cultural stagnation by making sure that nothing comes into the public realm for a hundred years. The primitivists want to give this system even more power so that now you can't even see the works and be inspired from them. That's a take that's antithetical to HN's ideas of intellectual curiosity. The EFF's take, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-cop... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-online-image-market https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-...
rockemsockem 3y ago
So penguin randomhouse should be the big winner in AI from what you're saying.

by NoZZz 3y ago

I think the copyright of the training material should be propagated, and such a system can not be allowed to compete in the market without attributing and recompensating the authors. ;)

kelseyfrog 3y ago

This should apply to human authorship as well.

mistrial9 3y ago
the four largest economies of the world have very different rules for this -- it is going to be settled today on a chat board?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
It does. Plagiarism is a thing.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  No, I mean any copywritable material that enters the human mind.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    You're kinda skipping past a whole lot to just equivocate that the human mind is comparable to an AI model
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      In every way that interacts with copyright, yes. In the ways that it doesn't interact with copyright, it's irrelevant.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't think "but copyright" gets you any further than you were before
freejazz 3y ago
Isn't that already true when human's do collage?

mminer237 3y ago

So every DALL·E, Stable Diffusion, and Firefly image should be jointly and equally owned by millions of artists? All of GPT's and LLaMA's outputs should be jointly and equally owned by essentially everyone who has ever written publicly online? I can see how compensating the original artists would be desired, but I can't see how that wouldn't completely kill the AI space. There's just no way to develop a suitable set of training data from only people who have signed a licensing agreement. Edit: And to be clear, CC BY-SA would not be a suitable licensing agreement, so things like Stack Overflow and Codidact and Wikipedia would be completely off-limits.

pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
> I can't see how that wouldn't completely kill the AI space. As if that's a bad thing
- brigadier132 3y ago
  Do you consider all automation to be bad?
- areoform 3y ago
  I'd like to express my shock at reading something so uninformed and poorly thought out in a place like HN. HN goes through its phases; just as the moon waxes and wanes, but this anti-AI, primitivist phase is quite annoying. If you do not seek progress for humanity and the construction of things that are more meaningful. If you do not have the hacker spirit and want to explore. If you don't want to create just to see what could be... Maybe you're in the wrong place. . And make no mistake, this is poorly thought out. This technology is never going away. Trying to ban generative AI is an attempt in banning math. Far more powerful people have tried for far more compelling reasons to do the same for a very long time. And when all was said and done, their crusade came undone. . The anti-AI arguments quickly crumble when you start asking questions like, What was the state of artists before this? Did all artists enjoy a high standard of life in every part of the world? Or, were they barely scraping by on Fiverr? In a world where copyright is required to train generative AI, who will be the only ones who could train any meaningful system? What happens if we forbid people from learning and building on art that is already copyrighted? What happens when people can copyright style? If only one band owned the copyright on Grunge and that whole Nirvana thing was just a non-starter? What happens if non-human entities (like a LLC or S-corp) can't meaningfully participate in artistic creation? . Based on how the law currently stands, it is the EFF's estimate that there is no way to modify the law to forbid a system from learning and creating derivative works without opening a can of worms and impacting human creativity. Fundamentally, the point of creative culture is that we add onto each other and that we stand on the shoulders of giants. An artist doesn't have to figure out how to draw in perspective because all the clever people before us have already thought it through for us. An artist doesn't have to figure out how to soften light, because others have done it before. All culture is fundamentally additive and intellectual property is an artificial restriction that has caused broader cultural stagnation by making sure that nothing comes into the public realm for a hundred years. The primitivists want to give this system even more power so that now you can't even see the works and be inspired from them. That's a take that's antithetical to HN's ideas of intellectual curiosity. The EFF's take, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-cop... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-online-image-market https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-...

rockemsockem 3y ago

So penguin randomhouse should be the big winner in AI from what you're saying.