Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mockapapella | Hacker News Reader

The creators who create media can also use these tools to create more media faster, as can novices. It's not like OpenAI literally eats the media, never to be shared with the world again.

View on HN

I create media for a living, painstakingly creating stuff from scratch in 3D. This tool will not help me, it will help clients avoid ever having to contract me. The main beneficiaries of this are holders of capital

But doesn't this technology give you the same edge?

You can deliver more content, faster, cheaper.

This issue here is thinking you, holding the knowledge to 3D model, are not also a holder of capital. Capital isn't just money.

Oh I see, they're not eating the media, just extorting the creators into paying OpenAI in perpetuity to use the tool derived from their own work, or face becoming uncompetitive with their peers who do use it. What if landlords, but for media creation, and they don't even have to pay for the land in the first place. That's fine then.

> pay a subscription to OpenAI in perpetuity in order to remain competitive with their peers

This is how technology works in general and should not be vilified. Someone comes up with a better way to do things (in this case bringing creative ideas to life) and charges a premium on top of that for their efforts. If the current wave of creators doesn't like it, then they should instead make something people want more than what their competition has to offer.

Either way, this is why local open source models are critical, so that everyone can benefit without needing to pay any single party.

If a company were founded tomorrow which allowed you to stream unlicensed TV shows and movies for a monthly subscription, undercutting Netflix and Amazons licensed streams, that wouldn't be described as "a better way to do things" just because their customers prefer it for being cheaper and easier because all the content is in one place. The difference between that and what OpenAI is doing is just degrees of abstraction, either way they're deriving value from others work without compensating them, and actively undermining the ongoing creation of the work they're appropriating, while simultaneously relying on the ongoing creation of that work to keep feeding their machine.

IP law has yet to decide whether my interpretation of the situation is correct in the legal sense, but I find it impossible to see "ChatGPT absorbs the work of writers/journalists and sells a superficially reworded version without attribution or compensation" as anything but theft obfuscated behind lots of fancy math. It's only going to get worse if LLMs end up displacing traditional search engines, so one day you'll publish an article and get exactly one impression from GPTBot which then turns around and figuratively copies your homework.

Forgive me for thinking that it may be difficult for independent artists to compete against the trillion-dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine that is actively plagiarizing their work faster than they can produce original work, without consequence, and suffocating them under a deluge of generated works.

This is an extremely different difference of scale, which does constitute a meaningful difference from prior technologies.

It’s difficult for independent artists to live as independent artists today, even without the specter of a “trillion-dollar groundbreaking plagiarism machine”[0]. So far, we’ve still been producing original work, primarily because it’s what we do even when we’re not making money from it. It’s a blessing and a curse.

This is not to dismiss the concern. I simply wanted to state that artists will find ways to keep moving the creative bar forward.

[0] I really like this turn of phrase, thank you for sharing it.

> extorting

That's not what extortion is. Stop abusing language.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com