undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfalcolas3y ago0 comments

The criticism is exasperation at those who feel entitled to make money off other's copyrighted materials, regardless of what title they might hold. Chat-GPT, Co-Pilot, and Stable Diffusion are algorithms; they are not entitled to learn from any material they want just because people anthropomorphize them and make baseless claims like "they learn just like people do!"

The important part is the opt-in mechanism.

0 comments

andybak3y ago

Opt-in would hugely limit the amount of material - possibly to the point where AI research becomes unviable for many applications.

This would impact pure research and other use cases which are likely to be of benefit to society as a whole.

Copyright was created with clear legal limitations (albeit that those limitations are often being eroded by corporate interests).

The "natural" state of man is without copyright and it's imposition isn't a moral right - it's a legal trade-off that should carefully weigh up cost vs benefit.

falcolasOP3y ago

> Opt-in would hugely limit the amount of material - possibly to the point where AI research becomes unviable for many applications.

Not necessarily a bad thing. If your tools require widespread breaking of existing laws, your tools are broken.

> it's a legal trade-off that should carefully weigh up cost vs benefit.

Cost: Loss of millions of jobs which are suddenly invalidated by the loss of copyright. Less content overall being created.

Benefit: AI can freely consume what content is left.

I think the cost is far too high.

EDIT: I'd also point out that the "natural" state of man is no laws at all - ownership of goods is enforced with only your strength of arms. I really don't want to live in that kind of world.

andybak3y ago

> If your tools require widespread breaking of existing laws, your tools are broken.

What laws do you mean?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfalcolas3y ago0 comments

The important part is the opt-in mechanism.

0 comments

andybak3y ago

Opt-in would hugely limit the amount of material - possibly to the point where AI research becomes unviable for many applications.

This would impact pure research and other use cases which are likely to be of benefit to society as a whole.

Copyright was created with clear legal limitations (albeit that those limitations are often being eroded by corporate interests).

The "natural" state of man is without copyright and it's imposition isn't a moral right - it's a legal trade-off that should carefully weigh up cost vs benefit.

falcolasOP3y ago

> Opt-in would hugely limit the amount of material - possibly to the point where AI research becomes unviable for many applications.

Not necessarily a bad thing. If your tools require widespread breaking of existing laws, your tools are broken.

> it's a legal trade-off that should carefully weigh up cost vs benefit.

Cost: Loss of millions of jobs which are suddenly invalidated by the loss of copyright. Less content overall being created.

Benefit: AI can freely consume what content is left.

I think the cost is far too high.

EDIT: I'd also point out that the "natural" state of man is no laws at all - ownership of goods is enforced with only your strength of arms. I really don't want to live in that kind of world.

andybak3y ago

> If your tools require widespread breaking of existing laws, your tools are broken.

What laws do you mean?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse