Hacker News Reader

Comment by pj_mukh | Hacker News Reader

Sorry when you said "Sole purpose", I assumed you meant the ChatGPT USERS sole purpose and OpenAI's expectation of their users' Sole purpose. My sole purpose as a ChatGPT user is not to create/recreate stock photos.

"just because you cannot pinpoint the exact art piece(s)"

Precisely, and neither can the owner of the copyright. Unless of course I rub into classical copyright issues ("these two art pieces look too similar") which goes back to my original question, why isn't just enforcing existing copyright law on bad ChatGPT users enough?

If I "use" your artwork, and generate another artwork that looks nothing like yours (either from my brain or by automating it) why do you care?

View on HN

> If I "use" your artwork, and generate another artwork that looks nothing like yours (either from my brain or by automating it) why do you care?

I wouldn't, but presumably the person who you are immitating would.

The fallacy here is that you think an LLM is taking one or two art pieces and then turning around and creating something brand new, like a human brain might do.

No. It's taking billions of art pieces and then sampling them at various frequencies to create your art work. We can find your art work somewhere in the training data, it's just hard.

In essence, we're smuggling the copyright violation through convolution. Since these models are truly very large, we can pretend that there isn't copyright violation. But there is, we just can't really find it because LLMs cannot work backwards.

" taking one or two art pieces and then turning around and creating something brand new, like a human brain might do."

I don't think the human brain is doing this at all (except maybe if you're writing a satire or homage). Your writing is the sum total of all your experiences which includes everything you've ever read, a number that might (depending on your age) at least approach millions of tokens.

And just like an LLM you'd find it difficult to piece together your influences.

The difference is I'm a person - I get special privileges. A computer program does not, we don't need to cater to them because, well, they don't have feelings. Or rights.

Ultimately these are tools, slaves to humans, meant for one thing only - to serve us. If they're not serving us, they should be eradicated. Because that's what we do.

Stealing from humans, no matter how convoluted, is bad. We shouldn't do that, and luckily that's completely optional and we don't have to stand for it. The computer programs can't fight back, it's okay.

Don't care if a computer program has special privileges or not, that's irrelevant. It's a tool, and it has the potential to make a whole host of processes and people's lives easier, and no one, not you, not an internet mob, not a council of elders has the right to preemptively stop those real-world tests based on vibes.

So getting to the bottom of what is actually stealing or not will be important (we can't just unilaterally declare it so), and AFAICT if a user misuses it to regenerate copyrighted material that particular user is at fault, not the tool itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com