Comment by FrustratedMonky | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FrustratedMonky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

FrustratedMonky

But. I am allowed to at least read the copywritten material, from which it goes into my brain to become mixed up with everything else, and spit out to produce something 'new' or 'newish'.

Some of these lawsuits are trying to prevent the AI from even 'reading' the material. It can't even be used as an influence.

Wouldn't it be better to treat the products of the AI with the same laws as humans. If the new 'product' is 'too close' to something existing, then they get sued. Just like a musician that has a song with a few notes that sound a little too close to someone's song from 30 years ago gets sued. The songwriter was allowed to listen to the music, it went into their brain and became an influence. If that influence becomes too great, then it can be sued.

> I am allowed to at least read the copywritten material, from which it goes into my brain to become mixed up with everything else, and spit out to produce something 'new' or 'newish'.

Yes, because you're A) human and B) that is how copyright is supposed to work.

AI doesn't enjoy the rights of people. AI is a "talking book" and copying, storing, then repeating someone else's work from your talking book would (likely) run afoul of [US] copyright law.

Seems copyright works in part because of the effort involved in producing something that's similar to something else. You can't just copy and it takes effort to make something different enough, that gives the original a bit of a "moat".

If you take away enough of that effort, the investment in new stuff becomes unviable, perhaps.

Agree. I think the 'effort' reduction is the real difference that makes AI products different from human products.

Though this seems different issue from copywrite .

Like, we see that this can impact society, so we need some new laws to guard this.

Why would that be better? You seems to assume that because these models have some utility to their creators they should be allowed, even when they have negative utility to others who’s work they consume. Why should that be true?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com