←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.614s | source
Show context
jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.43575060[source]

Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.

One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad.

Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "random character" button on the physical attributes a couple times.

There was an equally shatteringly-awful less-IP-theft (and as someone who thinks IP is itself incredibly ripping off humanity & should be vastly scoped down, it's important to me to not rest my arguments on IP violations).... An equally shattering recent incident for me. Having trouble finding it, don't remember the right keywords, but an article about how AI has a "default guy" type that it uses everywhere, a super generic personage, that it would use repeatedly. It was so distasteful.

The nature of 'AI as compression', as giving you the most median answer is horrific. Maybe maybe maybe we can escape some of this trap by iterating to different permutations, by injecting deliberate exploration of the state spaces. But I still fear AI, worry horribly when anyone relies on it for decision making, as it is anti-intelligent, uncreative in extreme, requiring human ingenuity to budge off its rock of oppressive hypernormality that it regurgitates.

replies(12): >>43575108 #>>43575193 #>>43575230 #>>43575342 #>>43575482 #>>43575832 #>>43576291 #>>43579027 #>>43579936 #>>43581419 #>>43582536 #>>43584432 #
mcmcmc ◴[] No.43575230[source]

So if it’s a theft machine, how is the answer to try teaching it to hide the fact that it’s stealing by changing its outputs? That’s like a student plagiarizing an essay and then swapping some words with a thesaurus pretending that changes anything.

Wouldn’t the more appropriate solution in the case of theft be to remunerate the victims and prevent recidivism?

Instead of making it “not so obviously bad” why not just… make it good? Require AI services to either prove that 100% of their training corpus is either copyright free or properly licensed, or require them to compensate copyright holders for any infringing outputs.

replies(1): >>43575461 #
chrisweekly ◴[] No.43575461[source]

(below is my shallow res, maybe naive?) That might inject a ton of $ into "IP", doing further damage to the creative commons. How can we support remix culture for humans, while staving off ultimately-destructive AI slop? Maybe copyleft / creative-commons licenses w/ explicit anti-AI prohibitions? Tho that could have bad ramifications too. ALL of this makes me kind of uncomfortable and sad, I want more creativity and fewer lawyers.

replies(1): >>43575844 #
1. mcmcmc ◴[] No.43575844[source]

> doing further damage to the creative commons

Not sure I understand this part. Because creators would be getting paid for their works being used for someone else’s commercial gain?

replies(1): >>43576384 #
2. chrisweekly ◴[] No.43576384[source]

Because it reinforces the idea that creative works should usually involve lawyers.

replies(1): >>43582480 #
3. mcmcmc ◴[] No.43582480[source]

No it doesn’t. It reinforces that copyright is the law. If you don’t violate someone’s copyright, you don’t need a lawyer.