[cypress66]

That's kind of irrelevant because these AI models will exist no matter what. The difference is if anybody will be able to train one, or just giants like Sony will be able to train one because they'll deal with the licensing.

[4death4]

The distinction is not irrelevant. Copyright exists to protect and foster creative works. If an AI can spit out unlimited works based on human-generated copyrighted works, then that seriously undermines the goals of copyright.

[vintermann]

> Copyright exists to protect and foster creative works

I'm glad you see it that way, and not as some inherent property right. It exists to advance the arts and sciences for humanity, not for the sake of artists. The artists are a means to an end, in this conception!

But if an AI can truly spit out unlimited works that are as good as artists can make, isn't the interest of advancing the arts and sciences accounted for?

And if it can't (what I believe, not from dismissing the models powers but from my understanding of what art is), then do artists have much to fear?

[K0balt]

You miss the point.

Sony will still do it. It’s about who gets to profit from making humans less valuable as creators, not about whether or not it will happen.

This is about rent seeking by huge corporations, ultimately, since they own huge swaths of rights to creative works and can easily acquire more.

This IS happening. The question is will the benefits to society be democratized to some extent, or will they be concentrated to benefit only the major industry players?

[CamperBob2]

That's too bad. Human progress is more important.

[4death4]

If what you’re calling “human progress” involved something other than continued concentration of capital in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, then I would agree with you. To me, it seems more like the rich using technology to steal from the poor.

[CamperBob2]

That's exactly my point. Copyright maximalism, which is suddenly suspiciously fashionable on HN, is a recipe for elevating powerful incumbents (and foreign powers who DGAF about copyright) to a level of control from which they will never be dislodged.

Premature decisions about "ethics" and reckless regulation by captive legislators will have an outsized influence on the future, which is why certain players are pushing so hard for both. They appear to have plenty of useful idiots in their corner, judging by how these threads typically play out.

[__loam]

The alienation of anyone who has ever dared to produce a creative work from their labor is apparently human progress then. Honestly, fuck you guys.

[CamperBob2]

That's unfortunate. Your attitude will end up empowering those you disagree with. By the time you understand who benefits from your position and why they are doing everything they can to encourage you to think that way, it will be far too late.

[__loam]

Incredibly patronizing way to say we're going to keep doing this.

[CamperBob2]

I'm not going to "keep doing this," but you can bet others are. Whining about alienation and 200-year-old copyright law isn't going to accomplish anything.

People have no idea what's coming. The personal computer was the biggest deal since electricity. The Internet was the biggest deal since Gutenberg. Large language models are the biggest deal since fucking Aristotle.

Nothing will look the same in 20 years. Absolutely nothing. Whatever you're clinging to now won't be there after the storm, so you'd better learn to swim.