←back to thread

125 points akeck | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.461s | source
Show context
fimdomeio ◴[] No.33581875[source]
I have a problem with this concept of "unethical sourced data". what does it really mean?

Isn't google search business built on "unethical sourced data", they keep a pirated copy of every website they encounter and feed it to their algorithms.

Isn't by definition human culture built on "unethical sourced data" remixed by the human brain? Example: imagine you are creating a punk band. You will use all your background knowledged of what punk is, the band's you like and maybe if you're creative an unexpected source of inspiration from things outside the world of punk? How's that essentially different from how stable diffusion works?

Another good example is the "Who let the dogs out" song. There's an article / podcast at https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/whomst-among-us-let-t... where they try to find the origin. At some point even the creators don't really know where the source of the inspiration came from but some of the sources are geographically close which seems to point to a common source. Some of the variations seem quite different, some are pretty close.

Overall I think this is just computers replacing some human capabilities, like machines in factories. You lose most of the poethics in the artistry of a human doing something by hand and gain the capability speed. Doing x per second instead of y per month. If you need the symbolism and the poethics of art you'll keep using a human. if you need to generate a thousand variations of an idea you'll use stable diffusion.

replies(2): >>33582047 #>>33597206 #
1. teddyh ◴[] No.33582047[source]
> Isn't google search business built on "unethical sourced data", they keep a pirated copy of every website they encounter and feed it to their algorithms.

Yes. Do two wrongs make a right? An accusation of hypocricy is not an argument.

> Isn't by definition human culture built on "unethical sourced data" remixed by the human brain?

Do not compare AI to human brains. They do not work the same at all, but however similar they are (or might become), they are legally distinct, since copyright law is meant to encourage humans, not AI, to create works.

The problem is people at large companies creating these AI models, wanting the freedom to copy artists’ works when using it, but these large companies also want to keep copyright protection intact, for their regular business activities. They want to eat the cake and have it too. And they are arguing for essentially eliminating copyright for their specific purpose and convenience, when copyright has virtually never been loosened for the public’s convenience, even when the exceptions the public asks for are often minor and laudable. If these companies were to argue that copyright should be eliminated because of this new technology, I might not object. But now that they come and ask… no, they pretend to already have, a copyright exception for their specific use, I will happily turn around and use their own copyright maximalist arguments against them.

replies(1): >>33590034 #
2. jjcon ◴[] No.33590034[source]
> but however similar they are (or might become), they are legally distinct

Untrue - this legally falls under the million precedent cases that have come before it - if the derived work (be it by algorithm or by human brain) is substantially transformed it is perfectly legal.