Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumballindie | Hacker News Reader

AI is not writers artists or developers, it’s software that ingests data and generates an output. Anthropomorphism is going out of fashion fast.

View on HN

Before we can agree on anything, we have to define what qualifies a human as any of those things. We will be here all night debating that.

- "They call themselves an artist but they are not that good." - "Copying and pasting shell scripts in a terminal does not a software developer make." - "The story that writer created is yet another permutation of <insert tale as old as time>"

You see what I mean? There is a good probability that today alone a significant percentage of content you saw online was AI generated and you were non-the-wiser and thought nothing of it.

I see what you mean but i think we are digressing. A human has certain rights while a machine doesnt. If we give ai learning rights then who’s to say a database is not like a human memorising things at a highly accurate level and as such we should make databases not liable for the storage of any copyrighted material. I dont mind ai generating code or art as long as that code and art it was trained on is not our publicly available but licensed work. Eager to try an ai trained against microsoft’s source code. After all, it would be like a human that worked at microsoft and hopped to a better job.

> I dont mind ai generating code or art as long as that code and art it was trained on is not our publicly available but licensed work.

It sounds good but mandating this will be death of AI in the west. This is relatively unprecedented situation where the use of copyrighted works actually helps you build tools useful for doing work. Training on DeviantArt makes the AI better at Photoshop-esque tasks.

Any country that doesn't implement this restriction will immediately be able to produce smarter more useful AIs.

> we should make databases not liable for the storage of any copyrighted material

I think this would actually be allowed right now legally speaking. That's basically a library or Google Cache. The hypothetical database wouldn't expected to be super useful because you can't "perform" any of the works outside of fair-use cases but it's up in the air of running inferences on that data (Google snippets) or training AI is a performance.

Good for whom in the west? Not for workers or ip creators that's for sure.

Google drives traffic so at least you gain something as a creator. Also amp has been rather unpopular.

It isn't now, but as we approach an inevitable singularity, whether it's in 100 years or 1000 years, what then?

Are we gonna fall prey to the scifi trope of "let's all be racist to machines", if so then I wouldn't hold it against AGIs to fall prey to the scifi trope of "I am gonna b evil now, bye bye humans".

If the output is indistinguishable, how can this matter? If I publish a work, how can it be copyright infringement when generated by AI, but not if I came up with the exact same output myself?

How would you even know which way I did it?

It's not anthropomorphism. They are both generalizing agents. It is an accurate and meaningful comparison.

"Stealing" is an action that does not depend on who or what the perpetrator is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com