4 ms·
Humans can’t automate and industrialise the process in the same way that AI can. That is to say, if I spend years learning how to write music and being influenc
by NamTaf 3y ago
Humans can’t automate and industrialise the process in the same way that AI can. That is to say, if I spend years learning how to write music and being influenced by a suite of prior artists, I can’t then package myself up and arbitrarily clone my capability such that an infinite number of people can ask me to spit out new music drawing inspiration from those prior artists.
Human capacity is rate-limited, and that’s an important distinction.
Another point: humans exist for a finite time. If I learn how to write music per the above, I’ve only got a set period of time wherein I’m collecting from the talents given to me by the shoulders upon which I’m standing. Sooner or later I retire/die and someone else must become the cultural torchbearer. If you consider some finite amount of capacity in the world to gainfully support all artists, I’m only drawing from that for a finite period of time.
Contrast that with AI, where, theoretically, in 50 years a model will still be just as able to create outputs as it is today.
Having said all that, I don’t have enough skin in the game to decide whether that builds an argument for regulating input vs output. I’m certainly sympathetic to the idea that it might, though. It’s a complex topic and saying “humans work this way, computers are fine to as well” doesn’t IMO capture the nuance of the debate.
- abracadaniel 3y agoThose are good points. The debate seems heavily focused on the "I don't like people using my stuff" argument, which falls apart pretty quickly for me. The real distinctions are more nuanced as you point out.
- sheepshear 3y agoYou don't see how one is shorthand for the other?
- __loam 3y agoI don't know, I think "I'd rather a billion dollar tech company not profit off my work without my knowledge or consent" is a petty good argument.
- cypress66 3y agoThat's kind of irrelevant because these AI models will exist no matter what. The difference is if anybody will be able to train one, or just giants like Sony will be able to train one because they'll deal with the licensing.
- 4death4 3y agoThe distinction is not irrelevant. Copyright exists to protect and foster creative works. If an AI can spit out unlimited works based on human-generated copyrighted works, then that seriously undermines the goals of copyright.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat's too bad. Human progress is more important.
- 4death4 3y agoIf what you’re calling “human progress” involved something other than continued concentration of capital in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, then I would agree with you. To me, it seems more like the rich using technology to steal from the poor.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat's exactly my point. Copyright maximalism, which is suddenly suspiciously fashionable on HN, is a recipe for elevating powerful incumbents (and foreign powers who DGAF about copyright) to a level of control from which they will never be dislodged. Premature decisions about "ethics" and reckless regulation by captive legislators will have an outsized influence on the future, which is why certain players are pushing so hard for both. They appear to have plenty of useful idiots in their corner, judging by how these threads typically play out.
- __loam 3y agoThe alienation of anyone who has ever dared to produce a creative work from their labor is apparently human progress then. Honestly, fuck you guys.