> This IP/copyright mentality is so 90s/2000s. Brings back memories of Napster.
The trend has been going against copyright ever since internet was invented. We used to go for passive consumption - radio, TV, books, print magazines. But now that age has passed. We have changed. We prefer interactivity - games, social networks, web searching the billions of contents online, youtube clips commented and shared around. In this age copying is like speaking.
Now comes AI and pushes this trend even deeper - more interactive, more remixing and adapted to the user. We should take a hint - the idea of owning content doesn't make sense anymore. Any content can be recreated in seconds now, or similar content was already posted online years ago. Protecting expression is useless and protecting styles would destroy creativity. Quite a catch-22.
We should take a look instead at new models that popped up in the last decades - open source, creative commons, Wikipedia, open scientific publication. Maybe we need to decouple attribution from payment, like scientific papers, they cite each other without monetary obligations. In social networks comments respond to each other, it would not work if we had to pay to read. Even in real life, people don't pay to hear others speak, and are reusing ideas without issue.
I am aware this sounds bad for copyright, but I am trying to state the reality, not propose my own views. There are deep reasons we prefer interactivity to passive consumption. Copyright was fit for a different age.
> This Jeff Geerling which I have never heard of
This guy doesn't have 1/10000 of the relevance Metallica had at the time
It's weird that you seem to think a person's level of fame is relevant to a discussion of their legal rights.
In terms of personality rights, it is relevant. Although I would think Jeff is enough of a public figure to make a case here
What legal rights? TIL voice imitators are criminals. /s
Funny, I first heard of Jeff Geerling over ten years ago in my dev circles.
Your inability to look even few decades into the future to see the impact of this is depressing. You only seem to care about yourself and your current grift.
Welcome to Hacker News/YCombinator. It's what they do here. Ever since joining the community, it's been a speedrun of things explicitly covered as unethical during my CS Ethics course. Mainly stay here to keep a finger on how far things have slid down the "man made horrors beyond comprehension".
How are you on hacker news and never have heard of Jeff Geerling? He's a goat in the ansible and raspberry pi world.
You would be surprised how niche these two things are. I don't care about both and 6 seconds of a tech guy's voice I am sure isn't the trademark of his content
You think someone stealing the dude’s voice is the same as people downloading Metallica songs?
Are you trying not to be taken seriously?
The danger of this shit can not be understated. Four years ago already there was a video where a deepfake of a president of the USA read a speech: In Event of Moon Disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLadJFI8Pk we of course know Nixon never gave this speech.
What happens when this "AI" is used to sway an election?
Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book. They didn't know it was AI generated. What happens when and this is not if, alas but when people die from this?
This shit is a danger to democracy and human lives. Napster was not.
Hi chx, long time no see! And I agree; deepfakes and voice cloning is already past the point it's fooling relatives. Some are good enough I have to spend time double checking if it's real or not. There are very real implications to all that, and being able to verify true from false is going to get more challenging in many circumstances.
>Last month a family got hospitalized after eating mushrooms they found and identified from a AI generated book.
Yeah, mushrooms are very dangerous, but the argument here is that the book could be written by a human. So what's the best way forward? Ban A.I. books, and human books?
A.I. also, is the best way IMHO to identify mushrooms. Mushrooms are drastically different from one another by magnifying their spores using a microscope. That's not the case when looking at the fruit. Mushrooms totally unrelated to one another, may turn out to be very similar, depending on season, humidity, rain, elevation, tree hosts, temperature and soil.
However when a human tries to examine the spores, he has to compare the spores to thousands of mushrooms to be sure. That's an amount of information, that only mechanically could be tackled effectively. A.I. may have a good chance to solve that problem.
That's kind of a different thing. Making the best AI possible for recognizing mushrooms and trying to produce the most factually correct answers is different than letting AIs run rampant, generating fiction.
Also, I'd want some kind of verification before using the mushroom app. Who made the app? Do they have people on their team familiar with mushrooms? Botanists or whatever you call them. Some random dude with free time and access to maybe 10 species of mushrooms in his backyard.. even if his intent is good, is still dangerous.