Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

If an artist or author can't do this, social media shouldn't be able to do it either.

If Xai wants to train on public corpus, it shouldn't be allowed to prevent its own corpus from being used.

We need regulations to limit the power grabs. Train all you like, but don't dare try to constrain to your walled gardens.

We should also probably nip the "foundation model company / also a social media company" conglomeration in the bud.

View on HN

Artists can do this, and they do

Yes, but do artists have the ability to actually monitor and enforce this? You have to have the capacity and the wherewithal and to test these models to even know that your data is being ingested into AI.

Big companies like the New York Times and Twitter/X have the funds to pay for this. Miscellaneous artists probably don't.

> If an artist or author can't do this, social media shouldn't be able to do it either.

Even if this is done, the case of starving artist v. megacorp will probably go to whoever wields the most money and lawyers. To add insult to injury, the artist’s opponent is fueled by their ill-gotten gains.

This is dependent on country. USA, yes with their draconian methods. Countries like the UK, the looser of the suit pays all the cost. UK layers have no problem taking low wealth client cases they know will win. UK allows for David vs Goliath and David to win. US up lifts Goliath as a God.

However the loser pays vs. both parties pay isn't uniform across all possible lawsuit types even in America or in England. Adding to that, even in loser pays regimes, both parties have to pay upfront and then the winner is refunded the costs.

> both parties have to pay upfront and then the winner is refunded the costs.

Exactly. It’s about which party can sustain the greater cash flow.

Also in many countries legal costs are just generally lower than in the US.

If social media can do this, an artist or author should be able to do it, too.

Social media should do it to set a legal precedent.

> We need regulations to limit the power grabs. Train all you like, but don't dare try to constrain to your walled gardens.

No, no one should train, period.

> No, no one should train, period.

I get that you have your own opinion, but I'm personally tired of living in the butter-churning era and would prefer that this all went a bit faster.

I want my real time super high fidelity holo sim, all of my chores to be automatically done, protein folding, drug discovery. The life extension, P = NP future. No more incrementalism.

If the universe only happens once, and we're only awake for a geological blink of an eye, I'd rather we have an exciting time than just be some paper-pushing animals that pay taxes and vanish in a blip.

I'd be really excited if we found intelligent aliens, had advanced cloning for organ transplants and longevity, developed a colony on Mars, and invented our robotic successor species. Xbox and whatever most normal people look forward to on a day to day basis are boring.

There is already a beautiful, exciting world out there full of animals and plants and we don't need AI or some computer crap to experience it. The problem is, creating all this AI and advanced technology is directly crushing that world.

> There is already a beautiful, exciting world out there full of animals and plants and we don't need AI or some computer crap to experience it.

I'm glad that this works for you, but I want more.

We're temporary apes on a soon to be permanent addition of metallicity to our sun's outer atmosphere. I don't think we should romanticize or hold anything sacred about our very temporary place in the universe.

We are metastable and ephemeral. Everything in this world is.

In that case I really hope human technology is quite ephemeral and crumbles, because I'd rather have animals have homes than people have technology.

> The problem is, creating all this AI and advanced technology is directly crushing that world.

Do you have a source for this?

This increase: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Would not be possible without the continued advancement of technology. Technology allows us to rapidly expand the human population, see all of the healthcare and transportation technology, which has resulted in a vastly higher extinction rate. Pretty much all the damage we have done on earth is only possible due to advanced technology.

There's a certain cabin-loving mathematician who'd probably agree with you about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com