4 ms·

TLDR Compares “using a computer” to “using an AI” as if they’re the same. Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers without offering any kind of s

TLDR Compares “using a computer” to “using an AI” as if they’re the same. Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers without offering any kind of solution to the people using copyright as a tool to protect their livelihoods. People are not IP maximalists on principle I’d have to guess but if it’s the best available means to safeguard their work from being leveraged against them they will use the means they have. Until that issue is addressed articles like this fall on deaf ears.

hn_acker 3y ago
> Compares “using a computer” to “using an AI” as if they’re the same. No, the article expresses the relationship "using an AI to do X" is a subset of the main set "using a computer to do X", but demonstrates that affecting the subset without affecting other elements of the main set is hard in the context of statutory law. > Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers The article does not refer to the AI companies as victims, and doesn't focus on the impact to AI companies in particular. The article's argument is a slippery slope: how do you write a law which restricts "using an AI to do X" without restricting other forms of computer tasks? What I have in mind are scraping, downloading (like youtube-dl), parsing, recoloring (can be accessibility-related), and otherwise interpreting (broad umbrella, but I'm thinking along the lines of OCR). > Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers without offering any kind of solution to the people using copyright as a tool to protect their livelihoods. People are not IP maximalists on principle I’d have to guess but if it’s the best available means to safeguard their work from being leveraged against them they will use the means they have. Until that issue is addressed articles like this fall on deaf ears. While it would be nice if the author of the article had a different proposed solution in mind, pointing out flaws in the solution "treat AI models as copyright infringement" is an important task. Moreover, keep in mind that the status quo is an option, and sometimes better than a change (especially when the First Amendment is involved). Will the AI regulation you have in mind would be worth it, and (separate question) will your proposed solution be better in comparison to the trend of the status quo?

hn_acker 3y ago

> Compares “using a computer” to “using an AI” as if they’re the same. No, the article expresses the relationship "using an AI to do X" is a subset of the main set "using a computer to do X", but demonstrates that affecting the subset without affecting other elements of the main set is hard in the context of statutory law. > Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers The article does not refer to the AI companies as victims, and doesn't focus on the impact to AI companies in particular. The article's argument is a slippery slope: how do you write a law which restricts "using an AI to do X" without restricting other forms of computer tasks? What I have in mind are scraping, downloading (like youtube-dl), parsing, recoloring (can be accessibility-related), and otherwise interpreting (broad umbrella, but I'm thinking along the lines of OCR). > Makes AI companies out to be the victim of AI doomers without offering any kind of solution to the people using copyright as a tool to protect their livelihoods. People are not IP maximalists on principle I’d have to guess but if it’s the best available means to safeguard their work from being leveraged against them they will use the means they have. Until that issue is addressed articles like this fall on deaf ears. While it would be nice if the author of the article had a different proposed solution in mind, pointing out flaws in the solution "treat AI models as copyright infringement" is an important task. Moreover, keep in mind that the status quo is an option, and sometimes better than a change (especially when the First Amendment is involved). Will the AI regulation you have in mind would be worth it, and (separate question) will your proposed solution be better in comparison to the trend of the status quo?