3 ms·

In general, the goal of labor is to enrich the society you live in. Whether it’s capitalism or socialism, the theory is the same: the richer your society, the h

In general, the goal of labor is to enrich the society you live in. Whether it’s capitalism or socialism, the theory is the same: the richer your society, the happier you’ll be, even if you’re poor. Objectively, the poorest in America live far better than the poorest in poor countries. Then there is the harm argument. What is the harm to authors of letting AI models do this? Models aren’t replacing authors any time soon. And even if they were, you won’t be able to stop it; precisely zero times in history have people stood against a wave of new technology. Technology wins 10 out of 10 times in the long run. I am skeptical that authors deserve anything for merely having a transformative use of their work. But I’m also sympathetic. The key is for authors to get a slice of the actual market value. Right now authors are shutting everyone down merely for using their work at all, with no consideration of whether anyone is even profiting. Yet even when authors deserve a cent, how do you decide which authors get how many cents? Do all profits go to copyright holders, as with YouTube? Then there’s no room to run a service. Is half fair? Before or after company expenses? And whatever is allocated, is it distributed evenly among all 100,000 authors, whether they’re Stephen King or just an enthusiastic contributor to AO3? $1M in profits distributed to 100,000 authors is a whopping $10 per author. That’ll buy them a Happy Meal and fries. It’s far more lucrative to make up imaginary damages and sue them in court. It’s immensely complicated, and it’s not at all clear that it’s evil or even exploitative to train AI models on other people’s work.

sensanaty 3y ago
[flagged]
- ta8645 3y ago
  > What happens if tomorrow, every creator just stops creating free shit for your AI to absorb? Then nobody will have free shit to absorb. Not young aspiring authors, and not AI models. > Hilarious statement, since obviously many people (especially the people who's actual work you're stealing) disagree with that. It's not theft when a human author reads the work of another author. And it's not theft when a model reads the work of another author. It's exactly the same.
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    > Then nobody will have free shit to absorb. Not young aspiring authors, and not AI models. Difference being, of course, the fact that the young aspiring authors are fully capable of coming up with novel ideas without having to copy the contents of 90 billion textbooks cover-to-cover. And I actually asked about a situation in which the content is no longer allowed for the AI specifically to absorb. What happens then, when these noble warriors of progress that are AI sycophants lose access to their as-of-now treasure trove of free shit that other people worked hard on? > It's not theft when a human author reads the work of another author. And it's not theft when a model reads the work of another author. It's exactly the same. Will this disingenuous line of "reasoning" ever die? A computer != A human, no amount of anthropomorphizing will ever make them equivalent. Edit: Also, if we do take this argument at face value, then humans already have to get proper access to the works of other authors.
    - ta8645 3y ago
      > Difference being, of course, the fact that the young aspiring authors are fully capable of coming up with novel ideas without having to copy the contents of 90 billion textbooks cover-to-cover. Every human was taught their language from other humans. It would be interesting to see how creative an inspiring author would be with zero literary exposure ever in their life. And that's all AI is asking, to have the same access to reading material as anyone else. To not be starved arbitrarily from having the same access to the world as a human. > Will this disingenuous line of "reasoning" ever die? A computer != A human Who cares? Stop being so compuphobic. Artificial intelligences should have as much access to reading material as any human. > ... humans already have to get proper access to the works of other authors. Of course. On this we agree. AI should have no extra access to written material and should have to respect the same laws as any human.
      - sensanaty 3y ago
        > ... And that's all AI is asking ... No, the AI itself isn't asking anything because it's not a sentient being capable of rational, independent thought. The people making the AIs are asking everyone else to blindly believe that using the word "learning" a bunch makes a computer and a human equivalent entities. > Who cares? Quite a lot of people, as can be shown in literally any discussion where AI comes up. > Artificial intelligences should have as much access to reading material as any human. Why? Other than AI creators wanting to make infinite money by generating spam en-masse, of course.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  > And? Why would I give a shit about some silicon valley asshole's company not being able to extract all the money on the planet for himself on the back of others? That logic works both ways. Why should AI creators give a shit about your wishes? If you’re not going to meet them halfway, they won’t either, and it’s a race to the bottom for everyone. You can be as angry as you want. It won’t change a thing. And if you won’t be reasonable and have a good faith debate on the topic, there’s little choice but to just ignore you. > Not really, just respect the creator's wishes. Why? Please justify this from a moral standpoint. You being the creator does not mean you get to control all aspects of your work. That’s not even how copyright works in general, let alone this case.
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      If you’re going to refuse to answer the question, we’re pretty much done here. You won’t justify why you feel entitled to control your work merely because you made it. That wasn’t the point of copyright in the first place. Bits are not property. Property is stuff, like a chair. You’re like the person who came up with "you wouldn’t download a car." Everyone would in fact download a car if they could, and frankly that’s a world that we should all be pushing for. I don’t know what to do with you. I don’t do well against people who just yell, since I tend to meet their emotion in kind. It’s a personal flaw. So, as one human to another, allow me to raise my middle finger at you for saying that I don’t care at all about morality when I lose sleep over this very topic. Enjoy your anger; you seem to revel in it. We also have a higher duty here, which is to foster good conversation on HN. If you can’t muster up some intellectual curiosity on this topic, we should both just end it — for the audience, if not for ourselves.
      - sensanaty 3y ago
        [flagged]

sensanaty 3y ago

[flagged]

ta8645 3y ago
> What happens if tomorrow, every creator just stops creating free shit for your AI to absorb? Then nobody will have free shit to absorb. Not young aspiring authors, and not AI models. > Hilarious statement, since obviously many people (especially the people who's actual work you're stealing) disagree with that. It's not theft when a human author reads the work of another author. And it's not theft when a model reads the work of another author. It's exactly the same.
- sensanaty 3y ago
  > Then nobody will have free shit to absorb. Not young aspiring authors, and not AI models. Difference being, of course, the fact that the young aspiring authors are fully capable of coming up with novel ideas without having to copy the contents of 90 billion textbooks cover-to-cover. And I actually asked about a situation in which the content is no longer allowed for the AI specifically to absorb. What happens then, when these noble warriors of progress that are AI sycophants lose access to their as-of-now treasure trove of free shit that other people worked hard on? > It's not theft when a human author reads the work of another author. And it's not theft when a model reads the work of another author. It's exactly the same. Will this disingenuous line of "reasoning" ever die? A computer != A human, no amount of anthropomorphizing will ever make them equivalent. Edit: Also, if we do take this argument at face value, then humans already have to get proper access to the works of other authors.
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > Difference being, of course, the fact that the young aspiring authors are fully capable of coming up with novel ideas without having to copy the contents of 90 billion textbooks cover-to-cover. Every human was taught their language from other humans. It would be interesting to see how creative an inspiring author would be with zero literary exposure ever in their life. And that's all AI is asking, to have the same access to reading material as anyone else. To not be starved arbitrarily from having the same access to the world as a human. > Will this disingenuous line of "reasoning" ever die? A computer != A human Who cares? Stop being so compuphobic. Artificial intelligences should have as much access to reading material as any human. > ... humans already have to get proper access to the works of other authors. Of course. On this we agree. AI should have no extra access to written material and should have to respect the same laws as any human.
    - sensanaty 3y ago
      > ... And that's all AI is asking ... No, the AI itself isn't asking anything because it's not a sentient being capable of rational, independent thought. The people making the AIs are asking everyone else to blindly believe that using the word "learning" a bunch makes a computer and a human equivalent entities. > Who cares? Quite a lot of people, as can be shown in literally any discussion where AI comes up. > Artificial intelligences should have as much access to reading material as any human. Why? Other than AI creators wanting to make infinite money by generating spam en-masse, of course.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
> And? Why would I give a shit about some silicon valley asshole's company not being able to extract all the money on the planet for himself on the back of others? That logic works both ways. Why should AI creators give a shit about your wishes? If you’re not going to meet them halfway, they won’t either, and it’s a race to the bottom for everyone. You can be as angry as you want. It won’t change a thing. And if you won’t be reasonable and have a good faith debate on the topic, there’s little choice but to just ignore you. > Not really, just respect the creator's wishes. Why? Please justify this from a moral standpoint. You being the creator does not mean you get to control all aspects of your work. That’s not even how copyright works in general, let alone this case.
- sensanaty 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    If you’re going to refuse to answer the question, we’re pretty much done here. You won’t justify why you feel entitled to control your work merely because you made it. That wasn’t the point of copyright in the first place. Bits are not property. Property is stuff, like a chair. You’re like the person who came up with "you wouldn’t download a car." Everyone would in fact download a car if they could, and frankly that’s a world that we should all be pushing for. I don’t know what to do with you. I don’t do well against people who just yell, since I tend to meet their emotion in kind. It’s a personal flaw. So, as one human to another, allow me to raise my middle finger at you for saying that I don’t care at all about morality when I lose sleep over this very topic. Enjoy your anger; you seem to revel in it. We also have a higher duty here, which is to foster good conversation on HN. If you can’t muster up some intellectual curiosity on this topic, we should both just end it — for the audience, if not for ourselves.
    - sensanaty 3y ago
      [flagged]