5 ms·

I asked this question a few days ago and the responses, arrogance and ignorance was astounding. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709 https://news.ycomb

I asked this question a few days ago and the responses, arrogance and ignorance was astounding. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709 I promise, if I'm here asking this week, there's millions more that will be asking next week. Carving out the labour market has more consequences than increasing productivity. It destroys culture, society and a will to live. Wise up. edit: And before the inevitable responses begin pouring in. Even the argued ethically sourced material scooped up from Shutterstock, et al. is still shrouded in dark patterns, hidden automatically enabled opt-in removal of rights, automated payments to tie up the fact you accepted payment as part of the argument in court. It all stinks, it should all tumble. edit2: People are great at recognising patterns. I've frequented this platform daily for almost a decade. The speed of engagement in this thread and the fact it doesn't exist on the front page... or the second shows, once again -- the strings can suck it. Stifling reality doesn't change it.

isodev 3y ago
I still don't get how people believe one can make money out of other people's creative works (on a mass scale at that) and get away with it. Training an AI is not fair use and has nothing to do with open source. Posting content online doesn't automagically make it usable for whatever purpose.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  The same executives that would argue and protect the IP of any major company out there right now are somehow saying the complete opposite when it reduces down to the individual. If this hasn't revealed the hypocrisy of thinking when chasing the money, nothing will. It's the first in a series of realities people are facing with this concept of AI. That in truth it is nothing more than a financial and informational bait and switch. Screw the lot who haven't revolted in pursuit of the fellow man and have instead sold their soul to a kleptocracy of babyfaced bullshitters
  - j7ake 3y ago
    Incentives explain seemingly paradoxical behavior. With IP, corporations originated their ideas, so executives want to prevent others from copying. With generative AI, corporations are copying individual's ideas, so executives want to allow this copying.
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      Indeed, a tale as old as time. If only this inept thinking could extend beyond short term financial gain. When (not if) the average Luddite begins to reject and disconnect from AI wholly whether productively or emotionally, who exactly is purchasing or consuming this soulless and useless content? It's as computer-centipede as it gets. The only use is to work against the benefit of society, truth and progress. It's a walled garden that can tell local citizens the truth and adversary's a series of lies. It's shown zero progress in years beyond a navigable encyclopedia of instructions only made more convoluted and confusing. The answers to AGI are not to chase complexity of what you've created. No one is blind.
- fatherzine 3y ago
  the attitude of those that do it: "what are you going to do about it?". escalatory power games, not an ounce of caring for your fellow man, barely a veneer of. we have entered very dark waters. unclear where the exit is.
  - scarmig 3y ago
    Preventing or slowing the development of AI is just a startling contempt for human life. Every day millions of people die unnecessarily. Willingness to let that happen because you think your family (or, most likely, a giant corporation) deserves to be paid for a century after you die is sheer selfishness and ignorance.
    - asdfgjkl 3y ago
      How exactly is content generation helping with preventing unnecessary death?
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        Well, for one, you can't read a lot of scientific journals without paying massive fees. That arguably slows down the pace of medical advance. One might note that those massive fees do not go to the "creatives", in this case the scientists. The scientist do the research, write the papers, peer-review the papers of others, edit the journals... and the publisher pockets the money. That's the case with most "intellectual property" -- the person who actually gets paid the lion's share is not the "creative".
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      If this was all done in the open as hoped, as promised and the worlds scientists were in pursuit of the same goal, I'd accept these arguments all day and keep my ignorant mouth shut. But to lie and say otherwise goes against the timeline of history we're all a part of. OpenAI lied about its openness. It then aligned militarily. It didn't offer to remove your data before this came into effect, did it? Source me if I'm wrong. A private company securing the worlds resources physically, financially and informationally and selling it to anyone of its choosing or not -- is the true startling contempt for human life, especially those that follow along without an ounce of critical thinking.
- Throwaway1746 3y ago
  >Training an AI is not fair use That's not for you to decide. >has nothing to do with open source It has everything to do with open source. If only Disney and getty images are allowed to train ai, there will be extreme monopolisation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - isodev 3y ago
    > That's not for you to decide. Of course it is, my content my rules.
    - LightHugger 3y ago
      There are many critiques and reviews that count as fair use, where the content owner would prefer the fair use did not exist. It being your content does not affect whether it falls under fair use.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      "Fair use" is a legal concept that has been hammered out by government regulations and the courts. You don't get to make up your own laws, mang.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I still don't get how people believe one can make money out of other people's creative works (on a mass scale at that) and get away with it. They saw Uber get away with it's thing, so they're going to try to get away with theirs. IIRC, when Uber was new, it was literally illegal in many/most of the places it operated.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Training an AI is not fair use You don't get to decide that, certainly not as a blanket statement. We're gonna have to wait for the courts.
caesil 3y ago
Thank you! This is exactly why we need to BAN weaving machines. The will to live is sustained by the work of the skilled artisans who create clothing by hand with looms. "But I don't want to pay 500 dollars for a t-shirt", you say. What astounding arrogance! Stop destroying culture and accept that we need to protect this valuable craft from technology that threatens to steamroll it.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  As per usual, money thinks of a human as a commodity for sale, not a neighbour being exploited or livelihood being stripped. If you think throwing life into a black box and consuming its results will improve productivity and enhance creativity. You're forgetting the only thing we feed this thing is 'results'. You're drinking the piss from a million artists and thinking it's fresh water. Eventually this filtered, censored source of creativity is AI material being used and creating for AI, not humans -- because humans quit being a source of material and nothing more than a requester. The short sightedness of believing you can commodify the human spirit is the most incredulous shit I've ever seen.
  - throwaway598 3y ago
    Self driving cars are far more impactful on employment and livelihoods of lower income and independent workers. And seemingly harder to reach non-monopoly/oligopoly solutions.
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      I don't play football unless the goalposts remain stationary.
      - throwaway598 3y ago
        How wonderful it might be to be able to have tickets to both a conventional game of football and an imagined one where goalposts move around. Paying people to move goalposts is expensive, and it might turn out to be a flop, but you could do both with Sora cheaply, and even make it into an interactive movie which, something impossible with conventional read only films.
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
Well, Alegria art and Marvel movies destroy my will to live. Yet I don’t advocate to ban them.
skepticATX 3y ago
I don't know if it's illegal, because I'm not a lawyer. I do know that it is completely unethical. A few large companies should not be able to package up and sell the totality of humanity's creative output at the expense of humanity itself. The backlash is certainly just beginning. Thus far, AI usage beyond brief exploration have mostly been driven by tech folks. As more people outside of the bubble get clued into what is happening, I think that reputations will take a serious hit.
- fithisux 3y ago
  This a real threat to democracy (maybe it is not there anymore)
r721 3y ago
>The speed of engagement in this thread and the fact it doesn't exist on the front page... or the second These two things are connected, actually: >The FAQ notes that submission rank is impacted by "software which downweights overheated discussions." A good rule of thumb for this effect is when the number of comments on a submission exceeds its score. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented?tab=readme-ov-file#flame-war-detector https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented?tab=re...

isodev 3y ago

I still don't get how people believe one can make money out of other people's creative works (on a mass scale at that) and get away with it. Training an AI is not fair use and has nothing to do with open source. Posting content online doesn't automagically make it usable for whatever purpose.

photoGrant 3y ago
The same executives that would argue and protect the IP of any major company out there right now are somehow saying the complete opposite when it reduces down to the individual. If this hasn't revealed the hypocrisy of thinking when chasing the money, nothing will. It's the first in a series of realities people are facing with this concept of AI. That in truth it is nothing more than a financial and informational bait and switch. Screw the lot who haven't revolted in pursuit of the fellow man and have instead sold their soul to a kleptocracy of babyfaced bullshitters
- j7ake 3y ago
  Incentives explain seemingly paradoxical behavior. With IP, corporations originated their ideas, so executives want to prevent others from copying. With generative AI, corporations are copying individual's ideas, so executives want to allow this copying.
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    Indeed, a tale as old as time. If only this inept thinking could extend beyond short term financial gain. When (not if) the average Luddite begins to reject and disconnect from AI wholly whether productively or emotionally, who exactly is purchasing or consuming this soulless and useless content? It's as computer-centipede as it gets. The only use is to work against the benefit of society, truth and progress. It's a walled garden that can tell local citizens the truth and adversary's a series of lies. It's shown zero progress in years beyond a navigable encyclopedia of instructions only made more convoluted and confusing. The answers to AGI are not to chase complexity of what you've created. No one is blind.
fatherzine 3y ago
the attitude of those that do it: "what are you going to do about it?". escalatory power games, not an ounce of caring for your fellow man, barely a veneer of. we have entered very dark waters. unclear where the exit is.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Preventing or slowing the development of AI is just a startling contempt for human life. Every day millions of people die unnecessarily. Willingness to let that happen because you think your family (or, most likely, a giant corporation) deserves to be paid for a century after you die is sheer selfishness and ignorance.
  - asdfgjkl 3y ago
    How exactly is content generation helping with preventing unnecessary death?
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      Well, for one, you can't read a lot of scientific journals without paying massive fees. That arguably slows down the pace of medical advance. One might note that those massive fees do not go to the "creatives", in this case the scientists. The scientist do the research, write the papers, peer-review the papers of others, edit the journals... and the publisher pockets the money. That's the case with most "intellectual property" -- the person who actually gets paid the lion's share is not the "creative".
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    If this was all done in the open as hoped, as promised and the worlds scientists were in pursuit of the same goal, I'd accept these arguments all day and keep my ignorant mouth shut. But to lie and say otherwise goes against the timeline of history we're all a part of. OpenAI lied about its openness. It then aligned militarily. It didn't offer to remove your data before this came into effect, did it? Source me if I'm wrong. A private company securing the worlds resources physically, financially and informationally and selling it to anyone of its choosing or not -- is the true startling contempt for human life, especially those that follow along without an ounce of critical thinking.
Throwaway1746 3y ago
>Training an AI is not fair use That's not for you to decide. >has nothing to do with open source It has everything to do with open source. If only Disney and getty images are allowed to train ai, there will be extreme monopolisation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- isodev 3y ago
  > That's not for you to decide. Of course it is, my content my rules.
  - LightHugger 3y ago
    There are many critiques and reviews that count as fair use, where the content owner would prefer the fair use did not exist. It being your content does not affect whether it falls under fair use.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    "Fair use" is a legal concept that has been hammered out by government regulations and the courts. You don't get to make up your own laws, mang.
tivert 3y ago
> I still don't get how people believe one can make money out of other people's creative works (on a mass scale at that) and get away with it. They saw Uber get away with it's thing, so they're going to try to get away with theirs. IIRC, when Uber was new, it was literally illegal in many/most of the places it operated.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Training an AI is not fair use You don't get to decide that, certainly not as a blanket statement. We're gonna have to wait for the courts.

caesil 3y ago

Thank you! This is exactly why we need to BAN weaving machines. The will to live is sustained by the work of the skilled artisans who create clothing by hand with looms. "But I don't want to pay 500 dollars for a t-shirt", you say. What astounding arrogance! Stop destroying culture and accept that we need to protect this valuable craft from technology that threatens to steamroll it.

photoGrant 3y ago
As per usual, money thinks of a human as a commodity for sale, not a neighbour being exploited or livelihood being stripped. If you think throwing life into a black box and consuming its results will improve productivity and enhance creativity. You're forgetting the only thing we feed this thing is 'results'. You're drinking the piss from a million artists and thinking it's fresh water. Eventually this filtered, censored source of creativity is AI material being used and creating for AI, not humans -- because humans quit being a source of material and nothing more than a requester. The short sightedness of believing you can commodify the human spirit is the most incredulous shit I've ever seen.
- throwaway598 3y ago
  Self driving cars are far more impactful on employment and livelihoods of lower income and independent workers. And seemingly harder to reach non-monopoly/oligopoly solutions.
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    I don't play football unless the goalposts remain stationary.
    - throwaway598 3y ago
      How wonderful it might be to be able to have tickets to both a conventional game of football and an imagined one where goalposts move around. Paying people to move goalposts is expensive, and it might turn out to be a flop, but you could do both with Sora cheaply, and even make it into an interactive movie which, something impossible with conventional read only films.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

Well, Alegria art and Marvel movies destroy my will to live. Yet I don’t advocate to ban them.

skepticATX 3y ago

I don't know if it's illegal, because I'm not a lawyer. I do know that it is completely unethical. A few large companies should not be able to package up and sell the totality of humanity's creative output at the expense of humanity itself. The backlash is certainly just beginning. Thus far, AI usage beyond brief exploration have mostly been driven by tech folks. As more people outside of the bubble get clued into what is happening, I think that reputations will take a serious hit.

fithisux 3y ago
This a real threat to democracy (maybe it is not there anymore)

r721 3y ago

>The speed of engagement in this thread and the fact it doesn't exist on the front page... or the second These two things are connected, actually: >The FAQ notes that submission rank is impacted by "software which downweights overheated discussions." A good rule of thumb for this effect is when the number of comments on a submission exceeds its score. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented?tab=readme-ov-file#flame-war-detector https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented?tab=re...