zlacker

[return to "GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code"]
1. kweing+v6[view] [source] 2022-10-16 20:27:21
>>davidg+(OP)
I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI.

For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged by Copilot.

For myself, I am skeptical of intellectual property in the first place. I say go for it.

◧◩
2. ghowar+99[view] [source] 2022-10-16 20:50:42
>>kweing+v6
I am a programmer who has written extensively on my blog and HN against Copilot.

I am also not a hypocrite; I do not like DALL-E or Stable Diffusion either.

As a sibling comment implies, these AI tools give more power to people who control data, i.e., big companies or wealthy people, while at the same time, they take power away from individuals.

Copilot is bad for society. DALL-E and Stable Diffusion are bad for society.

I don't know what the answer is, but I sure wish I had the resources to sue these powerful entities.

◧◩◪
3. csalle+kt[view] [source] 2022-10-16 23:57:14
>>ghowar+99
> while at the same time, they take power away from individuals.

Stable Diffusion and DALL-E give a ton of power to individuals, hence why they are popular.

It feels like you're doing a cost analysis instead of a cost-benefit analysis, i.e. you're only looking at the negatives. It's a bit like saying cars are bad because they give more power to the big companies who sell them + put horse and buggy operators out of a job.

◧◩◪◨
4. ghowar+zw[view] [source] 2022-10-17 00:23:41
>>csalle+kt
I explained more in my comment at [1].

The big difference is that cars were a tool that helped regular people by being a force multiplier. Stable Diffusion and DALL-E are not force multipliers in the same way. Sure, you may now produce images that you couldn't before, but there are far fewer profitable uses for images than for cars. Images don't materially affect the world, but cars can.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227303

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. csalle+DV[view] [source] 2022-10-17 05:39:12
>>ghowar+zw
This isn't super convincing to me. You're basically predicting that some new innovation will be limited in its usefulness, but you have no real way of knowing that, because the variables are too complex.

This is why we have a market. We let billions of individuals vote on what they think is useful or not, in real-time, multiple times a day, every day. If AI-generated images are less desirable than what came before, then people won't use them or pay to use them in the long run. They'll die like other flash-in-the-pan fads have died, artists will retain their jobs en masse, and OpenAI won't gain much if any power.

The entire idea of the market is to ensure that if some entity is gaining money/power, that's happening as a result of it providing some commensurate good to the people. And if that's not happening, or if the power is too great, that's why we have laws and regulatory bodies.

[go to top]