Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

What do people think is a realistic outcome here?

In a global economy, no country can stop deployment of consumer AI for digital goods unless you go full North Korea.

If you want some kind of international moratorium I'm all ears, but whining at people for buying AI digital art for $0 instead of graphic designers for $10,000 is utterly pointless. At best, you'll get them to buy art from Philippine designers... who are using AI... for $.50.

I have reservations about AI, but what do you gain with this approach? Guilt and national protectionism is utterly pointless.

View on HN

What approach is that?

Some people like AI. They should use it, talk about why they like it and use products that leverage it.

Other people don't like it. They should avoid using it, talk about why they don't like it and not use products that leverage it.

Each side's enthusiasm for their perspective can be shared for the purposes of convincing others that theirs is the correct perspective.

That all sounds pretty fine to me?

> Other people don't like it. They should avoid using it, talk about why they don't like it and not use products that leverage it.

How do you avoid reading AI slop, and AI ads, on the internet? Could you explain?

Also: AI is now further killing publishing (and "creators"), which had massively expanded through the internet first through blogging, and then facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, ... by allowing the platform owners to destroy the reach real people have by burying them in AI slop. How do you avoid that?

I think a reasonable thing folks want is to not have their art or design used to train these models without permission.

But that is utterly UNreasonable, of course, that is obviously why the courts did not side with that opinion (also because it's a stupid and naive opinion).

Unless they are saying they don't want anyone "trained" on "their data", it's a phrase that simply makes no sense and only expressed by people who don't know how the real world works at all.

The courts interpret the laws as they exist. I think GP is suggesting a change to the law.

You can tell who is trying to make money off AI by calling any criticism of scraping creators works naive and stupid.

as the rights holder, creator of content, of COURSE it is reasonable for me to assign these rights as I see fit, and scraping my works without my consent is brazen theft. I am free to not grant usage to pattern rip-off machines, that explicitly are NOT humans consuming my work in manners i have in mind.

spare me the false equivalence of pattern theft from human beings learning or reacting.

the express purpose of said pattern ripoff machines is to obviate me and regurgitate likenesses of my work, so, no, i shall not participate in my own murder.

The courts have ruled that you do not have these rights to gatekeep, as with the right of first sale.

did the author of the post you're replying to give you permission to read his comment?

> What do people think is a realistic outcome here?

Same as with Crypto, the bubble pops, and while the tech doesn't magically vanish it stops the seemingly geometric growth driven by speculative investment. The assumption built into all of these debates is so... uncritical, and can be summed up as, "The issues we see with 'AI', scaling, energy/water demand, hallucinations, running out of data and having to cannibalize itself, etc... can be solved within the existing frameworks." There is no indication of that being true, and frankly a lot of indications that it isn't.

Buuuuut a chunk of the US economy in the form of NVIDIA is tied up in pretending that it's true, a lot of companies are going whole hog into this, and of course a ton of people here are drawing their salaries based on that assumption. For those of us who aren't in that position however, much like Crypto was a real tech with hugely overblown marketing, 'AI' is the same.

Winter is coming.

Except crypto has always been kinda meh apart from speculation/gambling. AI on the other hand will have a lot of real economic impact which I think will keep the ball rolling a bit more.

Has there been ANY provable positive economic impact not related to startups and companies accumulating cash from VCs? I see AI (not LLMs) helping a lot in the sciences which I’m excited about, but that’s not even what the focus is for Wall Street.

I've used it for legal assistance which was probably worth something. There was a lady in HN discussion where her life was saved by ChatGPT - it diagnosed some bad blood condition while the real doctor was too backlogged to deal with it.

Not sure if that's a provable economic benefit. Also programing tools - they haven't replaced programmers but have increased productivity. There will probably be more along those lines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com