3 ms·

When you're viewing everyone with a different opinion than you as a grifter, corporate rat, or some other malicious entity, you've disabled the ability or desir

When you're viewing everyone with a different opinion than you as a grifter, corporate rat, or some other malicious entity, you've disabled the ability or desire for people to try to engage with you. You won't be convinced, and you're already being uncivil and fallacious. AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning. As well as when stopping AI from — as an example — learning from research papers means we miss out on life-saving medication. Where do property rights conflict with human rights? They're important conversations to have, but you've destroyed the opportunity to have them from the starting gun.

sillysaurusx 3y ago
Thank you.
- rvz 3y ago
  Thanks for what exactly?
  - Tadpole9181 3y ago
    It seems strange to interrogate why someone thanked someone else, doesn't it? Are you trying to start a fight with them over a simple acknowledgement that they agree?
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      If every HN was full of thank you posts, it would be unreadable. Upvotes exist. I prefer comments to add to the discussion, so I don’t find the users request for more information to be that baffling. Their comment was at least trying to further their understanding, which is more than sillysaurx did.
      - Tadpole9181 3y ago
        Then vote and/or report? They aren't trying to further their understanding, that much is clear when their dialogue started by saying anyone who holds a different ideological position is a grifter. They're trying to start a fight with a bystander who supported the "other".
      - sillysaurusx 3y ago
        I’ve been on HN since the beginning. pg himself said that thank yous are fine. Empty but positive comments are not harmful. I’ll leave my gratitude a mystery. They have my thanks, and my axe.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Why "of course"?
- danielbln 3y ago
  Because everything else is, why should AI output be any different?
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  Because as a society we generally already agree that human outputs need be restricted as well. Being artificial in origin doesn't change the nature of trademark infringement or outright theft (generally speaking — some content that is illegal now because it victimizes others, being turned into victimless but gross content is an edge case). To be clear, I would argue the regulations in question would fall under the human/legal entity responsible for the creation or dissemination. Having censored output on the AI itself seems significantly less productive.
rvz 3y ago
> When you're viewing everyone with a different opinion than you as a grifter, corporate rat, or some other malicious entity, you've disabled the ability or desire for people to try to engage with you. I think we have given it plenty of time for such a discussion and the amount of events and actions happening around training on copyrighted works from images, songs and deepfakes for the lawsuits and licensing deals to happen and it all converging to paying for the data; hence OpenAI and may others doing so due to risks in such lawsuits. > AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning. Copyright law does not care, nor is the overlying problem about using such a generative AI system for non-commercial uses such as for education or private use-cases. The line is being drawn as soon as it is commercialized and the fair use excuses fall apart. Even if the AI advances, so does the traceability methods and questions on the dataset being used. [0] It costs musicians close to nothing to target and file lawsuits against commercial voice cloners. Not even training on copyrighted songs was an option for tools like DanceDiffusion [1] due to that same risk which is why training on public domain sounds audio was the safer alternative rather than run the risk of lawsuits and ask questions on the training set by tons of musicians. [0] https://c2pa.org https://c2pa.org [1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/stability-ai-gunning-for-a-hit-launches-an-ai-powered-music-generator https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/stability-ai-gunning-for-a...
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  > I think we have given it plenty of time for such a discussion I don't see how this justifies needlessly divisive rhetoric. No matter how long the disagreement lasts, you aren't my enemy because you have a different opinion on how we should handle this conundrum. I know you mean the best and are trying to help. > Copyright law does not care Copyright law works fine with AI outputs. As does trademark law. I don't see an AI making a fanart Simpsons drawing being any more novel a legal problem than the myriad of humans that do it on YouTube already. Or people who sell handmade Pokemon plushies on Etsy without Nintendo's permission. But the question is on inputs and how the carve-outs of "transformative" and "educational use" can be interpreted — model training may very well be considered education or research. I think it's been made rather clear that nobody has a real answer to this, copyright law didn't particularly desire to address if an artist is "stealing" when they borrow influence from other artists and use similar styles or themes (without consent) for their own career. I don't envy the judges or legislators involved in making these future-defining decisions.

sillysaurusx 3y ago

Thank you.

rvz 3y ago
Thanks for what exactly?
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  It seems strange to interrogate why someone thanked someone else, doesn't it? Are you trying to start a fight with them over a simple acknowledgement that they agree?
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    If every HN was full of thank you posts, it would be unreadable. Upvotes exist. I prefer comments to add to the discussion, so I don’t find the users request for more information to be that baffling. Their comment was at least trying to further their understanding, which is more than sillysaurx did.
    - Tadpole9181 3y ago
      Then vote and/or report? They aren't trying to further their understanding, that much is clear when their dialogue started by saying anyone who holds a different ideological position is a grifter. They're trying to start a fight with a bystander who supported the "other".
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      I’ve been on HN since the beginning. pg himself said that thank yous are fine. Empty but positive comments are not harmful. I’ll leave my gratitude a mystery. They have my thanks, and my axe.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Why "of course"?

danielbln 3y ago
Because everything else is, why should AI output be any different?
Tadpole9181 3y ago
Because as a society we generally already agree that human outputs need be restricted as well. Being artificial in origin doesn't change the nature of trademark infringement or outright theft (generally speaking — some content that is illegal now because it victimizes others, being turned into victimless but gross content is an edge case). To be clear, I would argue the regulations in question would fall under the human/legal entity responsible for the creation or dissemination. Having censored output on the AI itself seems significantly less productive.

rvz 3y ago

> When you're viewing everyone with a different opinion than you as a grifter, corporate rat, or some other malicious entity, you've disabled the ability or desire for people to try to engage with you. I think we have given it plenty of time for such a discussion and the amount of events and actions happening around training on copyrighted works from images, songs and deepfakes for the lawsuits and licensing deals to happen and it all converging to paying for the data; hence OpenAI and may others doing so due to risks in such lawsuits. > AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning. Copyright law does not care, nor is the overlying problem about using such a generative AI system for non-commercial uses such as for education or private use-cases. The line is being drawn as soon as it is commercialized and the fair use excuses fall apart. Even if the AI advances, so does the traceability methods and questions on the dataset being used. [0] It costs musicians close to nothing to target and file lawsuits against commercial voice cloners. Not even training on copyrighted songs was an option for tools like DanceDiffusion [1] due to that same risk which is why training on public domain sounds audio was the safer alternative rather than run the risk of lawsuits and ask questions on the training set by tons of musicians. [0] https://c2pa.org https://c2pa.org [1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/stability-ai-gunning-for-a-hit-launches-an-ai-powered-music-generator https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/stability-ai-gunning-for-a...

Tadpole9181 3y ago
> I think we have given it plenty of time for such a discussion I don't see how this justifies needlessly divisive rhetoric. No matter how long the disagreement lasts, you aren't my enemy because you have a different opinion on how we should handle this conundrum. I know you mean the best and are trying to help. > Copyright law does not care Copyright law works fine with AI outputs. As does trademark law. I don't see an AI making a fanart Simpsons drawing being any more novel a legal problem than the myriad of humans that do it on YouTube already. Or people who sell handmade Pokemon plushies on Etsy without Nintendo's permission. But the question is on inputs and how the carve-outs of "transformative" and "educational use" can be interpreted — model training may very well be considered education or research. I think it's been made rather clear that nobody has a real answer to this, copyright law didn't particularly desire to address if an artist is "stealing" when they borrow influence from other artists and use similar styles or themes (without consent) for their own career. I don't envy the judges or legislators involved in making these future-defining decisions.