zlacker

I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better". To every artist or engineer out there who contributed to the general knowledge: you lost, everything you've ever done to help other people is now part of the models and there's nothing you can do to take it back. What even happened to the copyright strikes artists were supposed to bring up against these AI companies? That seems like 100 years ago :)

>>s1k3s+(OP)
I'm happy to contribute to the general knowledge. It's better than being forgotten and having no impact.

>>Walter+G
Oh you will be forgotten. All your knowledge will come from some trademarked AI bot and you won't even get a linkback

>>malfis+P1
unless you find a way to poison the AI so that it remembers you :)

>>malfis+P1
> Oh you will be forgotten.

Not your parent comenter but please allow me to enlighten you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_(programming_language)

When in doubt, always double-check who you're replying to in HN. We are lucky to have many great minds around.

>>s1k3s+(OP)
There's currently like 10 lawsuits against generative AI companies that are working through the courts including the one from Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, one from Getty Images, one from the Author's Guild, and one from the New York Times. It should be shocking to nobody that lawsuits take time to litigate, and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.

>>s1k3s+(OP)
I think that's a naive take. Derivative works are nothing new. What's new is that the price of this work is much lower with a tradeoff in quality. Even human copycats are still better than generative AI by miles.

The artist is not defined by their past work or other miscellaneous artifacts, but their perspective and creativity. This too is not a revelation. AI has nothing to do with this. It's just a means to an end.

The real problem is the legal stuff. Everything else is hype.

>>s1k3s+(OP)
> I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better".

Have we? Certainly the people litigating haven't. And as this article notes, actors' newest contract does have protections against AI. SAG-AFTRA's press release states [0] they are pursuing legislation. That could be bluster or could go nowhere, but certainly people haven't given up.

[0]: https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-regarding-scarl...

>>malfis+P1
In this specific case I asked ChatGPT, which said "Walter Bright is the creator of the D programming language. He's a talented programmer!", so maybe he specifically won't be forgotten. Most of the rest of us probably will, though.

>>malfis+P1
I think your answer belies an an assumption that is important in this context.

You are assuming that who came up with knowledge is important. I think Walter was saying that he would rather the knowledge not be forgotten, not that he was the one who provided it.

>>hu3+64
The point is still salient. People who don’t have Wikipedia links will be forgotten. Though I guess maybe that’s always been true.

>>837204+87
I have no idea if I am talented or not. I do know that I've spend a lot of time programming, and it's inevitable one would get better at it over time. I also learned from being around people who were really good, and were kind enough to help me.

>>__loam+e4
> and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.

My understanding of western law is that things are ok unless law forbids it. So they are operating in an area that under _current_ laws is ok but because of what may be at stake many wish the current laws were different and are willing to use litigation and lobby efforts to that end.

This is NOT IN REPLY TO YOU but a general observation: Imagine the litigation that will happen when brain implants enable brain to brain sharing sensations and thoughts. Imagine the horrible copyright abuse! How will the publishing industry and sports industry and Hollywood control the rampart piracy?!?

>>czl+xh
Why are we imagining a hypothetical situation in the context of talking about things that are currently happening? It's an interesting thought experiment but it's kind of irrelevant because brain implants are nowhere near that level and as far as I know, freedom of thought is already part of western law. I am not a lawyer though, I just think we can think about the actual damages to real people rather than make shit up.

>>dclowd+Q9
Your legacy can continue as part of the AI trained on your output.

What would you prefer? Would you want people to remember your name? Your face? Your voice? Which people? How often should they have to remember you? For how many thousands of years?

>>__loam+Qz
I put the "NOT IN REPLY TO YOU" since I meant that as a thought experiment of a possible future that where a similar situation may arise. Notice it is not freedom of thought that is in question. What is in question is freedom to share your sensations with others. You are watching a live football game and you share the sensations (what you see / hear / smell) with friends and family who are not there, etc. add to this technology that enables perfect memory of you sensations and instantly sharing them. In that possible future many will litigate and complain that their copyright and broadcast rights are being violated and they must be compensated much like what is happening with generative AI today. Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc. Gpt4o is a bunch of matrix math being done on high purity ore and refined sand powered by the sun / wind / splitting atoms / ... A century back few would believe it. Even a decade back, any predictions about a real AI like gpt4o working in just a decade, would you believe such predictions?

>>tasuki+fJ
> Your legacy can continue as part of the AI trained on your output.

That is one incredibly dense dystopian sentence right there. Damn.

>>s1k3s+(OP)
>there's nothing you can do to take it back

Given the fact that many, many people make their software MIT licensed (or rather, do whatever, I don't care license), I think most of us will be ok with that :)

>>tasuki+fJ
That's like saying that your happy someone person who plagiarized your work got famous because you live on in their "trained output"

>>Walter+pb
I personally don't know if you are either, but I have had a long chat with Andrei about D. His warm praise and enthusiasm makes me think you are!

>>czl+GJ
> Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc.

Well, "moon visits" are well on their way to being SF again. Or old fairy tales. :-(