6 ms·

If the AI movement will manage to undermine Imaginary Property, it would redeem it's externalities threefold.

57473m3n7Fur7h3 1y ago
I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I think they will manage to get themselves out of trouble for it, while the rest of us will still face serious problems if we are caught torrenting even one singular little book.
- tliltocatl 1y ago
  Even so, would be hard to prove that this particular little book wasn't generated by Claude (oopsie, it happens to be a verbatim copy of a copyrighted work, that happens sometimes, those pesky LLMs).
  - pyman 1y ago
    You just need to audit their system. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls
- CaptainFever 1y ago
  It's already quite widespread and likely legal for average people to train AI models on copyrighted material, in the open weight AI communities like SD and LocalLLaMa. Please, please differentiate between pirating books (which Anthrophic is liable for, and is still illegal) and training on copyrighted material (which was found to be legal, for both corporations and average people).
ttoinou 1y ago
It would be great, but I think some are worried that new AI BigTech will find a way to continue enforcing IP on the rest of society while it won't exist for them
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  I think that we are worried because I think that's exactly what's going to happen/ is happening.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
karel-3d 1y ago
That would render GPL and friends redundant too... copyleft depends on copyright.
- CaptainFever 1y ago
  Copyleft nullifies copyright. Abolishing copyright and adding right to repair laws (mandatory source files) would give the same effect as everyone using copylefted licenses.
bayindirh 1y ago
What are your feelings about how the small fish is stripped of their arts, and their years of work becomes just a prompt? Mainly comic artists and small musicians who are doing things they like and putting out for people, but not for much money?
- tliltocatl 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    I think I have worded my question wrong. I asked about not about how AI affects the financials of these smaller artists, but their wellbeing in general. There are many small artists who do this not for money, but for fun and have their renowned styles. Even their styles are ripped off by these generative AI companies and turned into a slot machine to earn money for themselves. These artists didn't consent to that, and this affects their (mental) well-beings. With that context in mind, what do you think about these people who are not in this for money is ripped out of their years of achievement and their hard work exploited for money by generative AI companies? It's not about IP (with whatever expansion you prefer) or laws, but ethics in general. Substitute comics for any medium. Code, music, painting, illustration, literature, short movies, etc.
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      (Shrug) If you want things to stay the same, both art and technology are bad career choices.
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        (Huh) What if you are in the field to advance it, and somebody steals your work and claims it as their own? e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44460552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44460552
pxc 1y ago
It's true that intellectual property is a flawed and harmful mechanism for supporting creative work, and it needs to change, but I don't think ensuring a positive outcome is as simple as this. Whether or not such a power struggle between corporate interests benefits the public rather than just some companies will be largely accidental. I do support intellectual property reform that would be considered radical by some, as I imagine you do. But my highest hopes for this situation are more modest: if AI companies are told that their data must be in the public domain to train against, we will finally have a powerful faction among capitalists with a strong incentive to push back against the copyright monopolists when it comes to the continuous renewal of copyright terms. If the "path of least resistance" for companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta becomes enlarging the public domain, we might finally begin to address the stagnation of the public domain, and that could be a good thing. But I think even such a modest hope as that one is unlikely to be realized. :-\
Der_Einzige 1y ago
Yup. My response to this whole thread is just “good” Aaron Swartz is a saint and a martyr.
LtWorf 1y ago
It will undermine it only for the rich owner of AI companies, not for everyone.

I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I think they will manage to get themselves out of trouble for it, while the rest of us will still face serious problems if we are caught torrenting even one singular little book.

tliltocatl 1y ago
Even so, would be hard to prove that this particular little book wasn't generated by Claude (oopsie, it happens to be a verbatim copy of a copyrighted work, that happens sometimes, those pesky LLMs).
- pyman 1y ago
  You just need to audit their system. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hours.
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls
CaptainFever 1y ago
It's already quite widespread and likely legal for average people to train AI models on copyrighted material, in the open weight AI communities like SD and LocalLLaMa. Please, please differentiate between pirating books (which Anthrophic is liable for, and is still illegal) and training on copyrighted material (which was found to be legal, for both corporations and average people).

ttoinou 1y ago

It would be great, but I think some are worried that new AI BigTech will find a way to continue enforcing IP on the rest of society while it won't exist for them

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
I think that we are worried because I think that's exactly what's going to happen/ is happening.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

karel-3d 1y ago

That would render GPL and friends redundant too... copyleft depends on copyright.

CaptainFever 1y ago
Copyleft nullifies copyright. Abolishing copyright and adding right to repair laws (mandatory source files) would give the same effect as everyone using copylefted licenses.

bayindirh 1y ago

What are your feelings about how the small fish is stripped of their arts, and their years of work becomes just a prompt? Mainly comic artists and small musicians who are doing things they like and putting out for people, but not for much money?

tliltocatl 1y ago
[flagged]
- bayindirh 1y ago
  I think I have worded my question wrong. I asked about not about how AI affects the financials of these smaller artists, but their wellbeing in general. There are many small artists who do this not for money, but for fun and have their renowned styles. Even their styles are ripped off by these generative AI companies and turned into a slot machine to earn money for themselves. These artists didn't consent to that, and this affects their (mental) well-beings. With that context in mind, what do you think about these people who are not in this for money is ripped out of their years of achievement and their hard work exploited for money by generative AI companies? It's not about IP (with whatever expansion you prefer) or laws, but ethics in general. Substitute comics for any medium. Code, music, painting, illustration, literature, short movies, etc.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    (Shrug) If you want things to stay the same, both art and technology are bad career choices.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      (Huh) What if you are in the field to advance it, and somebody steals your work and claims it as their own? e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44460552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44460552

pxc 1y ago

It's true that intellectual property is a flawed and harmful mechanism for supporting creative work, and it needs to change, but I don't think ensuring a positive outcome is as simple as this. Whether or not such a power struggle between corporate interests benefits the public rather than just some companies will be largely accidental. I do support intellectual property reform that would be considered radical by some, as I imagine you do. But my highest hopes for this situation are more modest: if AI companies are told that their data must be in the public domain to train against, we will finally have a powerful faction among capitalists with a strong incentive to push back against the copyright monopolists when it comes to the continuous renewal of copyright terms. If the "path of least resistance" for companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta becomes enlarging the public domain, we might finally begin to address the stagnation of the public domain, and that could be a good thing. But I think even such a modest hope as that one is unlikely to be realized. :-\

Der_Einzige 1y ago

Yup. My response to this whole thread is just “good” Aaron Swartz is a saint and a martyr.

LtWorf 1y ago

It will undermine it only for the rich owner of AI companies, not for everyone.