Thread

1. jacquesm · 1789726316 · focus · HN ↗

   It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up. Crimes this large are crimes against humanity. So many people whose life's work got appropriated without consideration, compensation or consent it is baffling.

   It is said that at the heart of every great fortune there is a great crime, so it should be no surprise that the most valuable companies on the planet will most likely result from this crime. And given that justice can be bought by those with the most money you can forget about anything coming of this.

   1. brookst · 1789733709 · focus · HN ↗

      Musicians and writers build new works on top off millennia of literary and musical history, then copyright their works and sell it back to us. Is this so bad? If Taylor Swift, consciously or subconsciously, gets an harmonic idea from a 1970's song and a fragment of a melody from some 1990's song... is that theft?

      I'm ambivalent about AI and, like all gold rushes, many of the players are terrible, dishonest, egomaniacal jerks.

      But I am deeply skeptical of the idea that aggregation of knowledge and culture is itself wrong. That's literally how culture has worked since the dawn of time, and our modern era obsession with credit and perpetual copyright is unhealthy. \

      It's only in the past 100 years or so that this idea of "if you create it, it's yours alone and nobody can build on it without paying you" became current, and it was largely driven by the megacorps that AI haters used to hate (remember the despite for RIAA? I do). It's bizarre to think that someone's life work is entirely their property, as if they grew up in a box and did not build on hundreds of generations of other peoples' lives work.

      I don't object to disliking these companies; I object to the idea that you, me, anyone remixing culture is committing a crime. What the hell happened to the hacker ethos?

      1. bayindirh · 1789734116 · focus · HN ↗

         The problem is not Taylor Swift is being "inspired" from other artists. We have tons of examples this throughout history.

         The problem is, replacing Taylor Swift with its AI counterpart, and to use Taylor's own material to do that without getting her permission or compensating her.

         This is not about Taylor even. It's about everyone, you and me, and Taylor and Haggard and Blind Guardian and Sia, etc...

         We hated RIAA because they prevented us from listening to the music while trying to get it was hard and expensive. In short, we were not angry because they wanted compensation, but because they have cut the supply without giving us a solution. Now we have iTunes Store and Bandcamp for DRM free music, and nobody is against musicians getting their fair share. As a side note, I used to make music, I know what it entails.

         Hacker ethos has ethics. It has do experiment but don't cause harm embedded all over it. It's about experiment and discovery. Not about ripping people off for their own profit (unless you're a black hat of course), and getting things were free was part of sending a message, not monetary gain.

         1. brookst · 1789735017 · focus · HN ↗

            Ok, thought experiment: at what point in the past 1000 years do you think the balance of collective versus individual benefit from creative works was at its most fair?

            > getting things were free was part of sending a message, not monetary gain.

            As an old who lived through phone phreaking (calling cards, not 2660hz, I'm not THAT old), cracking software, Naptser, torrents, etc... I can assure you that the message was more often than not a justification that transformed "getting it for free" from theft to a righteous moral stand.

            1. bayindirh · 1789752783 · focus · HN ↗

               We’re about the same age, probably. On this side of the pond, all of this stuff was rooted in inability to get something legally first, and if it was possible to get, it was prohibitively expensive to buy for us. So we got it for “free”. The thing is we were not using the software to earn money, so companies don’t care (this what I heard from a couple of companies directly). Music was in a similar position.

               It was a righteous moral stand because we wanted to get things relatively affordable for us.

               I for one prefer to buy my software and music nowadays, because it’s affordable and I can get it at the quality I want.

               For your other question, the answer is probably 1800s, because the current model was not entrenched everywhere and creators had sane rights for what they created. So creators had to get what they made out to masses to show it, but lost their rights in relatively shorter times, so things were free to use for everyone. So you can’t excessively milk something till proverbial eternity.

               1. brookst · 1789767542 · focus · HN ↗

                  On this side of the pond, wow were the college kids excited when they discovered they could reframe piracy as a political and countercultural statement, despite things being available paid.

                  At the time I pirated a lot of stuff. If we're of the same age, you may well have played video games I cracked in your teens. And, TBH, for me it was mostly collector mentality (I have have all the games!) and a bit of poverty (I can have the games I'd like to buy but can't afford), and about zero politics.

                  That said, I'm generally with you on 1800's. It's astounding how fast things changed. IIRC it wasn't until 1890 or so that international copyright was even a thing; you published in your home country and publishers in other countries just copied and published without permission or payment.

                  And then just 100 years later, copyright was essentially perpetual and global.

      2. hshdjdjdif · 1789734144 · focus · HN ↗

         when you do your job you take ideas from others before from university from calculus etc

         therefore you have to work for me for free

         1. brookst · 1789735050 · focus · HN ↗

            Oh I'm sorry, who's forcing you to work without pay?

            1. hshdjdjdif · 1789737620 · focus · HN ↗

               I write books for a living, when you buy them off Amazon I get 7 USD. when someone else gets them off libgen I get 0 USD.

               However if I put a gun to their head and demand to live in their house or give me food for free they get mad.

               Its lovely how everyone deserves to get paid except writers / musicians cause we are only fucking hippies when it comes to that.

            2. IAmBroom · 1789738477 · focus · HN ↗

               The point of the argument is that "forcing you to work without pay" is silly.
      3. sicher · 1789734625 · focus · HN ↗

         I agree with you, but there is one aspect that is different here - the scale that is way beyond what any human can do.

         I don't know what to think about that though.

         1. brookst · 1789734777 · focus · HN ↗

            Fair point. Think of it this way: the scale is more than any human, but it is probably akin to what humanity in general can do.

            1. sicher · 1789735346 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes. And even if (when) AI surpasses humanity in general I don't know it that changes the argument.
            2. sicher · 1789735602 · focus · HN ↗

               You might argue that since those LLMs build on all of humanity's knowledge, they should belong to everyone. But where do you draw the lines? Or make a practical case.

               1. brookst · 1789736404 · focus · HN ↗

                  They kind of do belong to everyone. The technology and majority of training corpus is available to essentially everyone.

                  The training and inference infra are owned and operated, but I can't see an argument that any machine that processes public domain (or stolen, if you prefer) info should be available to everyone for free.

                  But those training and inference costs will go to zero. Think about your cell phone today versus $1m+ supercomputers in the 1980's.

                  We're living in a transitory blip where capitalists and gold rushers are getting rich arbitraging the cost of processing against the non-cost of corpus. We can argue about morals (it doesn't bother me much) but it is a narrow window and it will be remembered the way Compuserve is: a precursor to the actual revolution, worth a footnote.

                  1. sicher · 1789737265 · focus · HN ↗

                     No, that's what I mean by where to draw the line. An artist taking inspiration from others is not obliged to give up the work to the public.

                     Sidenote: It may be tricky/impossible in the future to uphold intellectual property laws. If anyone is able (for instance) to prompt-create all their software, a software patent is worthless.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.