[akrymski]

My worry is that going down the rabbit hole of what is plagiarism and copyright is not productive. Humans are inherently rip off engines by this definition: everything we create is some remixed version of acquired knowledge created by someone else. Where do you draw the line? How much novelty must there be? Can you police this remixing at scale?

Tough questions when a machine can create novels in seconds that are as good as human written novels over many years. Value of knowledge is about to plummet.

[tivert]

> Where do you draw the line? How much novelty must there be? ...

> Tough questions when a machine can create novels in seconds that are as good as human written novels over many years. Value of knowledge is about to plummet.

You draw the line in a different way, different regimes for humans and machines: a friendly one for human creativity, a prejudicial one for machine "creativity". Sort of like how it's murder to physically crush and dispose of one of your human employees, but it's fine to crush and dispose of an old computer or car.

It's a probably pipe dream, because our society is cruel and indifferent, but it's the way it should be if you actually care more about people than systems.

[__loam]

> everything we create is some remixed version of acquired knowledge created by someone else

Patently wrong. If this were true, technology wouldn't exist. Humans create new knowledge. Patents exist to incentivize this.

> Tough questions when a machine can create novels in seconds that are as good as human written novels over many years

Thankfully they can't.

[piva00]

Maybe we should start talking in terms of scale then. Yes, we humans are inherent rip off machines, melding that together with our conscious experiences is where creativity is born. We aren't capable of ripping off at industrial scales, we get inspired by other work, a few people we look up to, and over time we develop our sense of taste and use our creativity to transform all these experiences into something new.

A rip off industrial machine ingesting all creation to spit out something else is not something we've seen or dealt with before, if we ignore the scale aspect of it we are very ill-equipped to deal with the consequences.

Scale always matter. A pretty good example of that is social media, we always had the village cranks, the conspiracy theorists, etc. but given the scale social media amplifies that we are now dealing with issues never seen before.

[vor_]

Humans have the capability to draw upon their influences to re-interpret and innovate in ways that lead to a new, unique interpretation, moving standards forward. AI always mimics, nothing more.

[lesuorac]

Eh, the rabbit hole already lead to you being in the wrong when copy other humans. Why would it be any different if you as a human get an AI to copy another human compared to if you as a human use a paintbrush to copy another human?

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

[akrymski]

> lead to you being in the wrong when copy other humans

How so?

> Why would it be any different if you as a human get an AI to copy another human compared to if you as a human use a paintbrush to copy another human?

No difference indeed. AI is just a tool, like Photoshop or a paintbrush. Unfortunately it's practically impossible to argue in court when two works are "substantially similar" at scale. This happens for extremely high profile cases atm, most artists are copied and never seen a dime, because the definition of "substantially similar" isn't black and white.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/feb/06/damien-...