←back to thread

Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

(www.businessinsider.com)
394 points pyman | 2 comments | 07 Jul 25 09:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.421s | source
Show context
tliltocatl ◴[07 Jul 25 10:49 UTC] No.44488844[source]▶
If the AI movement will manage to undermine Imaginary Property, it would redeem it's externalities threefold.
replies(8): >>44488891 #>>44488904 #>>44488979 #>>44489050 #>>44489249 #>>44490526 #>>44490665 #>>44490743 #
bayindirh ◴[07 Jul 25 11:41 UTC] No.44489249[source]▶
What are your feelings about how the small fish is stripped of their arts, and their years of work becomes just a prompt? Mainly comic artists and small musicians who are doing things they like and putting out for people, but not for much money?
replies(3): >>44489451 #>>44490682 #>>44495393 #
tliltocatl ◴[07 Jul 25 12:03 UTC] No.44489451[source]▶
"But think about the children". The copyright system is doing too much damage to culture and society. Yes, it does provides a pond for some small fish, but the overall damage outweighs this. Like the fact that first estate provided sustainable for arts and crafts to flourish doesn't make the ancient régime any less screwed up.
replies(1): >>44490146 #
bayindirh ◴[07 Jul 25 13:24 UTC] No.44490146[source]▶
I think I have worded my question wrong. I asked about not about how AI affects the financials of these smaller artists, but their wellbeing in general.

There are many small artists who do this not for money, but for fun and have their renowned styles. Even their styles are ripped off by these generative AI companies and turned into a slot machine to earn money for themselves. These artists didn't consent to that, and this affects their (mental) well-beings.

With that context in mind, what do you think about these people who are not in this for money is ripped out of their years of achievement and their hard work exploited for money by generative AI companies?

It's not about IP (with whatever expansion you prefer) or laws, but ethics in general.

Substitute comics for any medium. Code, music, painting, illustration, literature, short movies, etc.

replies(3): >>44490343 #>>44490688 #>>44492181 #
1. tliltocatl ◴[07 Jul 25 14:23 UTC] No.44490688[source]▶
I see your point, "AI art" sucks in general and this is ethically sketchy as hell, but AIAK style copying has never been covered by copyright in the first place. Yea, it sucks to be alienated form your works. That's one of the externalites I mentioned in the original comment. But there is simply no remedy there. That's how the reality is.
replies(1): >>44490906 #
2. bayindirh ◴[07 Jul 25 14:44 UTC] No.44490906[source]▶
Thanks for your answer, and taking your time for writing it!

Yes, style copying is generally considered legal, but as another commenter posted in a related thread "scale matters".

Maybe this will be reconsidered in the near future as the scale is in a much more different level with Generative AI. While there can be no technological solution to this (since it's a social problem to begin with), maybe public opinion about this issue will evolve over time.

To be crystal clear: I'm not against the tech. I'm against abusing and exploiting people for solely monetary profit.