Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own. That’s fine. What they want is to legally steal from the average joe.
It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a taste.
I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust code 70% of the time. It's hard to believe we've come this far, and it's only going to keep climbing in capability.
You're watching breakneck progress, and the genie isn't going back.
More art will be created per month than the entire human history to this point. Gen alpha is growing up on this stuff and using it to great effect to communicate amongst their peers. The things they build will be incredible.
Or we hit the top of the sigmoid curve and just have fancy autocomplete.
(2) It literally is autocompleting - it draws each pixel because it statistically determines that <some color value> is the best fit given the prompt and the prior pixels it drew. It's a more advanced robot, but it's still a robot.
Llama, ollama, etc are not the issue here. Nor is ai. The issue is theft for training.
This is the same argument the horse people had about the cars taking over the streets. In the end, progress will win.
Do we really want people spending hours and hours practicing and performing legacy acts of creation, with some people never able to summon the opportunity cost to even begin? For people to endlessly labor over creating a small amount of unrepeatable output?
Or do we want a world where everybody on the planet is able to turn their thoughts into something visible and tangible quickly? For society as a whole to have orders of magnitude bigger and better works?
This is a horse to car moment, but for thought itself.
I think it's quite telling that sooner or later, every discussion about "AI" and copyright ends up equating people to statistical models controlled by predatory megacorporations.
My connectome, in the eyes of the law, has a special legal status which is not shared by inanimate and non-sentient objects. In fact, some would argue that the entire point of the law should be to protect the special legal status of my connectome from those that would draw an equivalence between people and property.
"Open-source AI" is interesting in multiple ways, but not relevant to the legality of the models.
You know the "If ML is IP infringement then your brain is owned by Disney" take is just as sensible (and specious) for pre-ML stuff too, right? You're allowed to memorize the full script of any movie you want, without anyone trying even a little to claim that doing so should reduce your legal status to chattel, but obviously you're not allowed to just rip the subtitles from a DVD and sell it as a book.
That's not correct. We are now increasing the capabilities of everyone creative, to achieve much more, almost free and instantly. The painter now, will have a 100 million film studio on his fingertips to create movies. The musician will be able make a high quality album, just from his snoring.
One usual misconception is that talent is not important anymore. That's certainly not true. Talent is not going anywhere. People not so talented can get some results which are ok or good enough, but talented people can create magnificent art, without even trying.
Also "tab completing Rust code 70% of the time" is breadcrumbs. I am working in making, Rust specifically, 100% code generated.
Generating code is trivial. Generating code that works is not. I suspect you are at around 10-15% of reaching that. All models out there are probably at 2-3% as they barely equal a google prompt in reliability.
I don't put it to work for the moment, cause i am trying to create a TUI for HN, or a TUI forum more generally, like HN, maybe even backed by version control like Pijul instead of a database. 100% computer generated obviously, that goes without saying.
My biggest problem so far, is that GPT doesn't write idiomatic Rust. The code it generates is very C or Pythonic, and i am trying to figure out a way to guide it, to write beautiful code, instead of just correct code. When the machine generates just correct code, it doesn't cut it for me, is what i am saying. I am reading "Command Line Rust" to get a sense of idiomatic Rust, and then i have to study github projects as well to really figure out how beautiful idiomatic Rust code really is structured and written. Like, i know what idiomatic Rust is, just not that well at the moment.
The tool i want to create, to use GPT instead of Copilot, is something like Aider [1] but not in Python and maybe a TUI.
https://github.com/paul-gauthier/aider [1] https://github.com/pramatias/hnotify
People were saying the same thing 12 months ago.
Are you just not aware that the most outspoken advocates against private property (and rights to it, including IP/copyright), also strongly oppose capitalism and the idea of corporations?
However, I am strongly against using artist or writer work against their will. That also benefits corporations. Also ironic that we can use against them the play they used against us. Imagine open models that the artist or legal or writing community can use but not corporations unless they open their models.
Dowry payments used to be a real thing.
Butter churning used to be a real thing.
Copyright law is, and will be, mutable.
In just about a year, kids will be making entire Pixar movies from home. (The content will probably be Skibidi toilet related, but of Pixar scale and scope.)
How that reconciles with copyright, you've got me. It doesn't. It's a domain mismatch. It's completely outmoded by what's coming.
And the music industry is equally toast. I can already make an excellent banger song about superhero rodents in under 30 seconds.
Slightly less flippantly, the days when the nation gathered around their TVs to all watch "Leave It To Beaver" at 8pm are long gone, the media landscape has been fragmenting for decades and this is just the next step. My kids don't watch TV shows, they follow YouTubers.
A six-year-old filmmaker has as much claim to copyright protection as Spielberg and Tarantino. Just because one uploads to YouTube and one is paid millions of dollars by a major movie studio, it doesn't mean that they're different in the eyes of the law.
From what I understand, once a work is created, copyright is assigned to that work's creator. That creator may then license that work however they want. Quality doesn't factor in.
There, I've stolen your post. Did copyright protect you? No, it did not. Copyright is an idea we came up with that sounded good at the time, and it's come to pass at this point that the original idea was deeply flawed in ways we could never have predicted, but now can see clearly in hindsight.
The truth is, intellectual property should be protected by those creating it. Coke does a great job of this, as do many, many other companies. We call these "trade secrets", but ultimately the concept is the same. You're protecting the work you deem worth protecting.
I don't buy the notion that copyright ever protected the creator. What it really protected was the interests of the entities who effectively enslave the creators via contract, and is not of any tangible benefit to the creators themselves. If one truly cares about the artisans among us, one cannot justify the existence of our ideas surrounding copyright.
Yes, removing those laws from our doctrine would cause upheaval, as the market must then rebalance itself in the absence of the artificial pressure we've put on it, but in time all things find equilibrium again, and placing the value and responsibility back on the individual is, in my mind, simple human decency.
The whole point of government and laws and societal norms is that not everyone has to be deeply involved and specialized in protecting their rights. We default to people doing the right thing and seek out specialists (e.g. lawyers) when we're wronged.
Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years life experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it protects people who create, from assholes and AI.