←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
timewizard ◴[] No.43574484[source]
> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to

I completely disagree. It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do. How anyone expected novel outputs from this technology is beyond me.

It's highly noticeable if you do a minimal analysis, but all modern "AI" tools are just copyright thiefs. They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content.

replies(1): >>43574599 #
jMyles ◴[] No.43574599[source]
> It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do

That's true of all the best artists ever.

> They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content.

That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is a "thief". To be a thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my house and steal something.

When someone copies or remixes my music, I'm often not even aware that it has occurred. It's hard to imagine how that can be cast as genuine theft.

replies(6): >>43574924 #>>43574984 #>>43575055 #>>43575222 #>>43576227 #>>43587331 #
janalsncm ◴[] No.43575222[source]
> That's true of all the best artists ever.

Just to play Devil’s advocate for a moment, why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software? We can make whatever rules we want to.

A human might implicitly copy, but they are not infinitely scalable. If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer program with a marginal cost of zero.

replies(1): >>43576170 #
jMyles ◴[] No.43576170[source]
> why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software?

Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?" If the technology of our age is our birthright, don't we have the right to engage whatever mathematics we find inspiring with its aid?

> If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer program with a marginal cost of zero.

...that sounds like a good argument in favor of the always-available computer program.

replies(1): >>43577043 #
janalsncm ◴[] No.43577043[source]
> Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?"

I don’t think so? It’s not illegal to call random people on your phone, but if you do it millions of times per day with a computer it can be illegal.

replies(1): >>43577933 #
1. jMyles ◴[] No.43577933[source]
It seems to me that harassment is similarly offensive regardless of the degree of automation.

...and it's not obvious that transmitting bytes (within frequency and bandwidth protocols) is ever justly criminal; they are trivial to ignore.