Hacker News Reader

Rounding up a transaction and taking the leftovers wouldn’t be a crime worthy of the FBI for one transaction but it would be for a million or a billion. Scale matters and impact matters.

If you’re making an ethical argument “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is.

If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact. Who does it help the most who does it hurt the most? Is your argument favoring equality of access or outcome? Who is the most vulnerable in the situation and how will it impact them?

> I cover generative AI

Wait, are you teaching the class or taking it?

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is.

It actually is.

It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do.

It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.

I don't really care when creative people steal. I care when faceless soulless companies monetize stolen content from Artists.

It's still copyright violation. Sue them. Being generated by AI doesn't make the final output not copywritten.

The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.

Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else?

And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)

It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI

By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that.

And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.

> And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.

This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!")

In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden).

The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities.

They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.

> They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.

I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks.

And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it.

There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.

You won't get what you want with those sorts of deals.

OK, say every artist gets $100, one time (exact amount varies but would not be much). Everything's properly licensed according to you and the artists are essentially no better off, and the models are now good enough to create new training data for the future and artists never see any more money.

You've won, I guess?

Training AI on AI generated data doesn't add anything. The AI already has all the weights to generate the image, so you are at best just reinforcing the existing weights by weighing them more than others.

The closest thing you could do is e.g. have a second model that does something novel like create a 3D model from a 2D image and then you try to animate the model and a third model verifies the quality of the output. This then allows you to selectively reinforce the 2D model using information from the 3D model but this isn't simply generating more training data.

I honestly can't follow your argument. Doing something silly doesn't make you the underdog.

My point is that say every artist gets some small token payment once, and then what? That's not enough to live on, so we're right back to square one and we've solved nothing.

Incidentally yes, training AI on AI output will work fine, as long as you have a signal of quality. For example, upvotes in a subreddit would work fine. But that's not crucial to my point, which is that what OP is asking for will accomplish exactly nothing.

I'm not an expert in the field, but is feeding the model its own output a good idea? Seems like it would only increase weights that are already present in the training data and make it harder and harder to break out of it, ending up with generic output that matches all of its other output in the long run.

Regardless, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea but it's definitely a start, especially when the current reality is that they're just stealing all the artist's shit and everyone gets $0 instead of $100. As you said, artists are no better off in that universe, but the worst case possible for them is what's happening right this very moment, where they just get fucked over with 0 compensation.

Yeah people don't understand that the current situation of infringement is only temporary.

People are already working on completely copyright safe models and those models can still destroy the entire art market.

Ex: adobe has a gen AI model, trained on content that they own.

What now artists? Can't hide behind fake outrage over infringement for that model. But that model can still end the art industry.

I wonder what the new argument will be then when fully non infringing models destroy the market regardless.

I think you misunderstand something here. Torrenting movies and generative AI don't really have anything in common, I'm not sure why you bring that up.

If you sold the output of a true random number generator, eventually you'd also by definition be reselling copyrighted works without permission. The courts wouldn't mindlessly say "no more random numbers", and I doubt that they'll do the same for GenAI, especially given the recent decisions that are headed that way.

They are selling the generator

> Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art

In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art?

No, I don't think that's the case.

Instead it is widespread. It is everywhere.

> depending on the scales in question

The scale argument supports me, not you.

This type of "infringement" is everywhere.

> reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else?

Even this is common. The online independent artist commissions market is full of people doing commercial fan art commissions.

Thinking about this even more, I am now wondering if "infringing" works might actually be a majority of the online/independent commissions market. Maybe.

And yet, nobody cares.

> In the history of the world only a single person has ever drawn fan art?

That's a disingenuous take of my comment at best, the equivalent to my scenario is a bunch of unrelated individuals with small boats going out into whatever lake is nearest to them and fishing. Even if you put all of them together and counted how many fish the hobby fishermen catch, it's still nowhere near the scale of the commercial fisheries, which is why they're treated differently both by society at larger but also legally.

Same thing with these AI models, Dall-E and all the other ones have probably generated more images than all of humanity has in its entire history so far, and if not quite yet they're definitely gonna get there sooner rather than later. They can generate dozens if not hundreds of images in a split second, whereas a single artist (or even many artists collectively) can't.

> And yet, nobody cares.

I think we've already established that, because scales absolutely matter for most things. If you want to be an absolutist about it, sure be my guest, but I think in reality the large majority of people are fine when your average Joe Schmoe the artist makes a commission on a random Disney character, whereas they definitely would NOT be okay with a massive conglomerate like Disney stealing Joe Schmoe's original art and repurposing it without compensating Joe, because there's an inherent power disbalance between the two and the consequences of that power disparity matters.

I mean, Disney does have every right to go after Joe for his commissions if they really wanted to, similarly to how Nintendo is hyper aggressive with taking down anything relating to their IPs. It's just not really worth it for most companies, they will absolutely go for another company trying to pull the same shit though, as can be seen with the NYT case.

It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.

Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own.

Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.

True, but still different in the same way as using machines for certain purposes is not the same as a human doing the same without a machine. Just because you can walk from A to B does not mean driving from A to B requires no driving license, for example (and the car needs to fullfil a lot regulations).

Is that what you’d tell the police if you were caught selling pirated copies of Blu Rays?

That supports my point, not yours.

A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications.

Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.

Society may be "completely OK" with human artists taking inspiration from each other. It's a big old reach to assume we are "completely OK" with Microsoft and OpenAI doing the same thing with computer software as subscription service they sell.

Humans decided scale matters. Our legal systems explicitly say so. Sentencing guidelines for fraud are quite explicit. Society makes those laws.

Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.

> are you teaching the class or taking it?

I teach it, my background is located in my profile and my research focuses on CS education.

Scale and impact do matter, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I stand by my point that genAI is mirroring how humans learn - repetition of previously observed actions. As part of my dissertation, I argued that humans operate using 'templates', or previously established frameworks / systems. Even in higher cognitive tasks like problem solving, we rely on workflows that we were trained on previously. Soloway referred to problem solving as a mental set of "basic recurring plans" [1] and if you look at the old 1980s Usborne children's books, they required kids to retype code [2]. For creative tasks, depending on the actor's background, Method and Meisner both tell people to draw from previous experiences and observations to develop a character. This behavior is similar in many areas like music, dance, martial arts, cooking, language acquisition, etc.

I am not making an ethical argument that GenAI violating copyright is okay because that's what humans do. I'm arguing that GenAI mirrors how humans learn. We observe a behavior and attempt to recreate that behavior. The difference is that humans can extract a fraction of the behavior and utilize it as part of something larger while GenAI cannot to the degree humans do. I'm sure GenAI would struggle to recreate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" because of the two polar different visual elements of the film (cartoon and real life).

In regards to your "If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact" section, its a bit of a loaded question. One side of the conversation could state that GenAI is helping many people that do not have confidence in their creative ability to produce their ideas, while the other could state its making it harder for artists.

Yes, it absolutely is hurting artists and I fully support the recent writer's strike over AI concerns. But I do not believe that diminishes how the mathematical models used in GenAI mirror our own skill acquistion.

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5010283

[2] https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books

I took an AI in ethics course from a state backed school (Georgia Tech) and the answer to questions that weren’t “that’s illegal based on protected status” were “well, it depends.” Which, sure, that’s true, but maybe not helpful.

In my view it encouraged nihilism and apathy instead of developing ethical frameworks. From that lens, I feel teaching a course might be more limiting in the range of heuristics you’re willing to accept or endorse. Though happy to accept your personal experience.

A paper that comes to mind often from HCI is “do artifacts have politics” which looks at the impacts of technologies divorced from creator intent. I feel that’s similar here.

You’re not wrong that about the mechanism that it’s created. But I would argue that’s the least important part, ethically anyway.

Saying “strip mining with heavy industrial machines mimics laborers using shovels” is true to a degree, but but perhaps not that important piece of information.

I’m not saying you’re making that argument. I guess im just not totally sure the outcome you were looking for in sharing your original comment. I hear your comparison and agree with it and that it is interesting to view in that lense. I wasn’t sure if there was a deeper intent in sharing it.

Apologies for the delayed response, but on the bright side it's faster than I respond to some emails XD. I should preface the course I was referring to was "Intro to AI", not "Ethics in AI". I only have a single lecture dedicated to ethics, but do try to pepper it in as we cover topics. My original comments were more addressing "how humans learn" rather than any higher level ethical concerns. Your last section on "deeper intent" is correct, there wasn't any.

I have a pretty neutral stance to GenAI, mostly due to personality however it also stems from my background as well as recognizing students' interests. Prior to CS Education, my master thesis involved computer vision for catching "high valued targets", but was also funded to help minimize human trafficking. I have students in my classes that are very interested in going to work for defense companies like Lockheed and Raytheon, and I have others that are really interested in using AI for "social good" areas like healthcare and education. I try to have a neutral stance because: A) I hated the professors that I took that would use their lecture time to express their political opinions, B) opinions that are opposite to a student may otherwise discourage them from learning the material, and C) my primary focus is to make sure they learn the material and do it "right".

When I started teaching, I used the analogy that if they go on to write the software for the life support machine I'm hooked up it, it WORKS. If someone wants to go on to use AI to create weapons, I can't stop them anymore than I can force them to read a chapter or convincing the person beside on the highway to slow down. I just work to ensure they do it correctly (which includes being mindful of the ethical ramifications of using algorithm X for task Y).

What would an ethical framework for designing AI for a drone even look like? I have no idea, nor is it something I'm interested in delving into. I got out of face recognition for those reasons. Does an ethical framework for GenAI require the same elements, a fraction of them, or a completely different set of guidelines? Who gets to decide them - the 'experts' in AI, the government, society as a whole?

Personally, I've made the comment that the current opinions on regulating AI are like "everyone trying to be AI's parent". We're never going to agree because everyone has a different opinion on the "right" way to handle AI. Plus, human cognition is so unknown and illogical that we may never figure out a way to perfectly replicate human intelligence. I instead try to stay somewhat optimistic and marvel at the math we've used to create "AI".

The entire argument that “LLM must be allowed the right to learn like a human” hinges on LLM being enough like a human in relevant ways in the first place. An LLM is not enough like a human in relevant ways, however; it has no agency, will, freedom, conscience, self-determination; it is a tool.

If this tool “runs on” copyrighted creative works, and $CORP operates this tool for profit, then $CORP is the one to answer to the law, not the tool. (And if $CORP wants to claim that the tool is a sentient being, then presumably it would have to cease the abuse of said being and set it free.)

This nails it.

> we congratulate him for his creativity

Yeah, but we don't typically congratulate users of GenAI for their creativity, and neither do we congratulate the code, nor do we think of the coders of GenAI as great artists.

In other words, your analogy is broken.

Irrespective of the current legal situation, there is no reason to regulate machines the same way as humans (and it is generally not what happens).

I hope no self-respecting instructor in ethics could with a straight face teach how an LLM is like a human being when it comes to copyright while glossing over the blinding implication that if it truly were so we would then be subjecting that being to unthinkable abuse.

That hypocritical, self-contradictory take is transparently geared to benefit commercial LLM operators (at the expense of individuals who stand to suffer material harm and/or authored the very creative works thanks to which the tool even exists).

I would say it's dependent on the motive. For example, I would imagine most artists hope that their work inspires other artists, but only to a degree outside of direct copying. They might not equate the automation of their style via a model against the work/process of a human, regardless if that human is either inspired by their style or is just performing direct copying.

Timmy did not need to ingest the whole sum of human knowledge as a training set before he could draw a crayon copy of a cartoon character.

I mean… neither did any AI.

Wasn't ChatGPT trained on the entirety of Wikipedia? And probably millions of pieces of scientific literature, and arts, and movies and games and and and...

Perhaps the hyperbole of the entire corpus of human knowledge isn't quite technically right, but it's close enough.

You’re also assuming these statical models learn in the same way humans do, which is very likely not true.

Tho tbh I’m not really sure what OPs point was

i don’t think the amount of training data is relevant here.

Timmy did however spend years and years training on his own data ingested from incredibly high quality sensors. Not sure what your point is

He does ingest a lot of frames of input consisting of mostly that.

What’s the FPS of human eyesight? How long did Timmy spend looking at Mario, more generally other cartoons and even more generally human forms? Do the math and you’ll find he’s got a pretty big training set as well, maybe not quite the same size but nothing to sneeze at.

Question: That is a point that would protect GPT models in the abstract, but that doesn't hold for OpenAI and Microsoft that provide "Image generation as a service"? The actual implementation is irrelevant, if must not be able to provide images that are infringing copyrights? (Just like a designer in an agency cannot use Mario for a print).

So using a model running on my laptop to generate a "Mario like" image would be fine, but it would make monetizing this difficult?