Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Megaface

exposing.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Megaface

#61

Post by rsync »

What's going to happen when (not if) it becomes cheap and simple to mock up your own head and you "present" that in multiple locations, simultaneously ?

It's interesting to think about how these systems (and their human operators) will react when their system recognizes, with certainty, that X is in two places (or 15) at once ...

... or if X is recorded somewhere (Zurich) and then two hours later at an impossible distance (San Francisco) ...

In a way, it's the opposite of the "Sigil" plot device in Gibsons _Zero History_ wherein the wearer was invisible to security camera networks.[1] Instead, the operator of this network of clones aspires to be on as many cameras as possible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_History

Re: Megaface

#62

Post by pixl97 »

traceroute66 wrote: post #21
KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do the scraping in a jurisdiction where it is legal.

> You can do the scraping in a jurisdiction where it is legal. No such thing with GDPR. Why do you think so many US websites take the lazy-ass approach and block EU visitors to their websites ? Simple, its because either you comply with GDPR or you don't process the information of citizens of GDPR covered countries. End of story.

If I'm in China and I scrape/collect data I don't think the GDPR is going to do anything to me. This really only affects businesses that some the EU has some means of reaching.

Re: Megaface

#63

Post by gwern »

schemescape wrote: post #19
gwern wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is apples and oranges. SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use ): they do not distribute (ie copy ) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so the license of the original images is completely irrelevant. (Details like 'signatures' are also irrelevant: if I write a style parody of Willia…

Does anyone know if attempts have been made to trick these ML models into reproducing original copyrighted inputs verbatim (edit: or close enough)? Edit: Asking about verbatim copies wasn't really a great question. I should have asked about producing things that are "close enough to cause legal trouble" (whether that be due to copyright, trademark, or something else).

There's been a lot of work on memorization, yes, and you can also do nearest-neighbor lookups in the original data to gutcheck 'memorization'. As usual, the answer is "it's complicated" but for most practical purposes, the answer is 'no': you will get the Mona Lisa if you ask for it, absolutely, but the odds of a randomly generated image being a doppelganger is near-zero. (If you've seen stuff on social media to the contrary, then you may have been misled by various people peddling img2img or 'variation' functions, or prompting for it, or other ways of lying/ignorance.)

But you certainly can get things like watermarks without any real memorization. Watermarks have been a nuisance in GANS, for example - the StyleGAN CATS model was filled with watermarks or attempted meme text captions, even though the cats were so nightmarish that they obviously weren't 'plagiarized' so nobody made a big deal about it back then and they understood the GAN had simply learned that watermarks were a thing in many real images and it would try to imitate them where plausible in a sample.

Re: Megaface

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #27
schemescape wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know if attempts have been made to trick these ML models into reproducing original copyrighted inputs verbatim (edit: or close enough)? Edit: Asking about verbatim copies wasn't really a great question. I should have asked about producing things that are "close enough to cause legal trouble" (whether that be due to copyright, trademark, or something else).

One, the diffusion model's possible output space contains every RGB image ever. But two, it cannot ever possibly contain the original inputs verbatim, because (the size of the model)/(the size of the training set) comes out to be something like 0.2 KB per image. Unless it's an incredible compression algorithm, diffusion necessarily have learned something from the input rather than copy-pasting things, as claimed upth…

> Unless it's an incredible compression algorithm, diffusion necessarily have learned something from the input rather than copy-pasting things, as claimed upthread.

Arguably, "learning" and "compression" are the same thing.

In this sense, you can view SD as a compression algorithm where the decoder is the model, the compressed file is the prompt + tweakable params, and there aren't any error checks made, so you can feed random data into the decoder and get something out.

Re: Megaface

#65

Post by janalsncm »

charcircuit wrote: post #55
samwillis wrote: post #8

One of the difficulties with these training datasets is the currently understood rules around web scraping. The current legal precedent [0] is that web scraping is perfectly legal, despite what is in the websites terms of service, "licence" or robots.txt. If a human can navigate to it freely, you can scrape it using automated means. What you can't do with scraped data is republish it verbatim. Doing a data analysis o…

A ML model would be considered transformational.

Depends? What about Naive Bayes?

Re: Megaface

#66

Post by colesantiago »

gwern wrote: post #11
colesantiago wrote: post #2

"All photos included a Creative Commons licenses, but most were not licensed for commercial use." I wonder what the implications are for Stable Diffusion, DALLE and Midjourney since that art images on the internet are copyrighted by default. Even with a fair use argument, there are examples in cases where AI was generating art that included the signatures of artists. https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2022/12/lensa-ai-art-ima…

This is apples and oranges. SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use ): they do not distribute (ie copy ) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so the license of the original images is completely irrelevant. (Details like 'signatures' are also irrelevant: if I write a style parody of Willia…

Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. The issue is that there is clearly copyrighted works in the model that living artists have not consented to being in the model.

> SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use they do not distribute (ie copy) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so the license of the original images is completely irrelevant.

If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? It's almost like they know they are copying digital artists works without their explicit consent. This wouldn't be an issue if they only used images in the public domain.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/16/1065247/artists-...

And we both know that Stable Diffusion have Dreambooth which you have to pay to use the platform, so this is clearly not fair use.

https://platform.stability.ai/docs/getting-started/credits-a...

Re: Megaface

#67

Post by makapuf »

schemescape wrote: post #32
sdenton4 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how memorization in neutral networks works. For classifiers, memorization is more like learning a hash function and a lookup table; no need to store the full image at all. Even for very large models, the weights are a tiny fraction of the size of the original data. It's probably helpful to think of embeddings for generative models in a similar way; it's a very specific embedding function, like a loc…

Thanks. Yes, I shouldn't have asked about "verbatim" copies -- I should have asked about something more like "close enough to cause legal trouble". Obviously copying verbatim is a violation of copyright, but there must be some threshold of "close enough" that is still problematic. E.g. compressed MP3s of copyrighted songs aren't a verbatim reproduction, but as far as I'm aware they're still covered by copyright. Trad…

A band playing publicly a reinterpretation of a famous band will get sued even if its not verbatim.

Re: Megaface

#68

Post by traceroute66 »

laingc wrote: post #52
traceroute66 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can do the scraping in a jurisdiction where it is legal. No such thing with GDPR. Why do you think so many US websites take the lazy-ass approach and block EU visitors to their websites ? Simple, its because either you comply with GDPR or you don't process the information of citizens of GDPR covered countries. End of story.

Well, no, only if you’re under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. They can rule against you as much as they like, but it’s not enforceable outside of the EU or a jurisdiction that chooses to enforce EU judgements.

> Well, no, only if you’re under the jurisdiction of the EU courts.

That is an awfully naïve argument my friend.

If it were that simple then there would, for example, be no need for a 68 page document entitled "The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Enforceability in U.S. Courts of Orders and Judgments Entered under GDPR"[1].

Allow me to quote from the Conclusion on page 68:

"As the Commentary shows, the enforceability of GDPR orders and judgments in a U.S. court will depend on several factors, including the nature of the relief sought through the order or judgment, the nature of the underlying violation and the process through which the order or judgment was initially obtained in the EU, and the U.S. organization’s contacts with the EU."

I would say that makes it pretty darn clear that it's far from being a simple argument about the jurisdiction in which the defendant is based.

[1]https://www.dorsey.com/~/media/files/newsresources/publicati...

Re: Megaface

#70

Post by schemescape »

makapuf wrote: post #67
schemescape wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Yes, I shouldn't have asked about "verbatim" copies -- I should have asked about something more like "close enough to cause legal trouble". Obviously copying verbatim is a violation of copyright, but there must be some threshold of "close enough" that is still problematic. E.g. compressed MP3s of copyrighted songs aren't a verbatim reproduction, but as far as I'm aware they're still covered by copyright. Trad…

A band playing publicly a reinterpretation of a famous band will get sued even if its not verbatim.

That’s an even better example.
Post reply on HN