3 ms·

Hard disagree. The whole concept of copyright is unnatural and technology evolution is showing its limits. In the same way a writer reads books and use that kn

Hard disagree. The whole concept of copyright is unnatural and technology evolution is showing its limits. In the same way a writer reads books and use that knowledge to create more, an ai model can do the same.

freejazz 3y ago
> In the same way a writer reads books and use that knowledge to create more How would writers do this if copyright is stifling as you say?
Kiro 3y ago
Imagine getting downvoted for this on a forum called Hacker News. Embarrassing that we have become copyright zealots.
- theamk 3y ago
  I think it comes with creating content yourself. Once you make some, you kinda want to have some control over it.
- JoshuaRogers 3y ago
  That might be misunderstanding the role of copyright as it applies to the worlds we live in. Many here see copyright as a critical tool necessary for the existence of copy-left licenses, licenses that we use to make sure that what we write stays open in a way that others can benefit from. We rely on copyright to ensure that our code stays “Free as in speech” not simply “Free as in beer”. Simply accepting no form of creator control is at odds with our desire to make sure that the things we produce stay open for others to use since there is nearly no incentive for the next person to keep our code open.
jprete 3y ago
All property is unnatural. What's your point?
romwell 3y ago
>In the same way a writer reads books and use that knowledge to create more, an ai model can do the same. No, it can't. Literally. The AI model doesn't decide which data goes into training it. People do. These people are doing something very, very bad. Also, the AI model can't be held responsible for its actions. Again, people that create it and use it can be, however. People on HN like to point out that an AI model is "just a tool", so work created with AI is still the work of the user. It's only reasonable to point out that a tool is not the same thing as a writer. A tool lacks agency. Therefore, a tool isn't "learning" just like a writer. A ZIP file isn't "learning" when it's created by transforming data into a binary file. Neither does a JPEG file. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the AI model is equivalent to a sentient human being in your eyes, it should have the same rights and responsibilities. As long as it's being used, the equivalence isn't there.

freejazz 3y ago

> In the same way a writer reads books and use that knowledge to create more How would writers do this if copyright is stifling as you say?

Kiro 3y ago

Imagine getting downvoted for this on a forum called Hacker News. Embarrassing that we have become copyright zealots.

theamk 3y ago
I think it comes with creating content yourself. Once you make some, you kinda want to have some control over it.
JoshuaRogers 3y ago
That might be misunderstanding the role of copyright as it applies to the worlds we live in. Many here see copyright as a critical tool necessary for the existence of copy-left licenses, licenses that we use to make sure that what we write stays open in a way that others can benefit from. We rely on copyright to ensure that our code stays “Free as in speech” not simply “Free as in beer”. Simply accepting no form of creator control is at odds with our desire to make sure that the things we produce stay open for others to use since there is nearly no incentive for the next person to keep our code open.

jprete 3y ago

All property is unnatural. What's your point?

romwell 3y ago

>In the same way a writer reads books and use that knowledge to create more, an ai model can do the same. No, it can't. Literally. The AI model doesn't decide which data goes into training it. People do. These people are doing something very, very bad. Also, the AI model can't be held responsible for its actions. Again, people that create it and use it can be, however. People on HN like to point out that an AI model is "just a tool", so work created with AI is still the work of the user. It's only reasonable to point out that a tool is not the same thing as a writer. A tool lacks agency. Therefore, a tool isn't "learning" just like a writer. A ZIP file isn't "learning" when it's created by transforming data into a binary file. Neither does a JPEG file. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the AI model is equivalent to a sentient human being in your eyes, it should have the same rights and responsibilities. As long as it's being used, the equivalence isn't there.