Hacker News Reader

The jist of what you're saying is in the Free Culture movement/philosophy, I think, and it resonates with me as someone who does not like what AI has done with copyrighted works but also dislikes copyright.

The "rent-seekers" is the problem. We collectively inherit and own our shared culture, but large corporations have always wanted to sell it back to us. AI companies are arguing they should have no limitations on their usage of the culture, but that the same shouldn't apply to them. Selling tickets to the commons is anti-commons.

Perhaps if these companies were themselves arguing for the end of copyright and IP for everyone, the conversation would be different.

Right, I think we’d be having a very different conversation if products of AI could not be sold (what’s taken for free must be given for free and free for others to use as they see fit). Companies will fight this tooth and nail though because that flushes any prospective profit produced by firing humans down the drain.

I think copyright lawsuits against AI companies will force them to develop attribution models. They will do the work of indexing all ideas to their authors. This will also reveal what is common knowledge, and who borrowed from who without attribution.

In order to make attribution models we need text+author+timestamp. We can get that from books, newspaper articles, scientific papers and social network posts. Then we extend to the rest of the training set.

But then we can also make AI models that cleverly avoid infringement while the same strict checking is going to be applied to human made content. Humans are not that good at avoiding pitfalls.

> Even if you got your way and all training on copyrighted material was stopped today and all existing models were deleted it would only be a matter of time before we could synthesize arbitrary styles (at least as well as we can today) by identifying and controlling the correct axes in tensor space using a model purely informed by public domain data.

Do it then.

> Your art is mostly not yours, your art is mostly an amalgamation of other people's art which itself is also the same, all the way down. You are a sprinkling of flavor on top. Your art is stolen styles, techniques and vibes mashed together.

Eat shit. People deserve to have some ownership over the product of their labor. Imagine doing all that work to learn all these skills and some rat fuck nerd tells you they have the right to alienate you from that work, making some greasy fucking argument that the multi-billion dollar program they made is doing the same thing you do.

Corporate abuse of copyright isn't an excuse for corporate abuse of people who can actually make things.

We all know that an artist studying the masters to make something original isn't the same as an autocomplete API picking the color of the next pixel. Come on, man.

> studying the masters to make something original

original or "original"? maybe AI companies need to hire people to make "original" content for AI.

Whether or not those things are equivalent isn't relevant to any part of my point.

You equivocated them.

I did not. You and GP are missing the point. I'm trying to make you understand how much of art is stealing from others, that you're incorrect about how art works at a basic level. Art is mostly drawing upon the commons and your understanding of artist rights is based on a fiction created by corporations and wealthy rent seekers seeking to retain power in our economic system.

You're such a condescending prick. Do you actually know any artists? Have you actually tried making art?

You might think I'm being rude or overly hostile to you, but frankly I think you deserve it. Your views are atrocious.