My summary of the case: Someone did statistical analysis of a bunch of texts and created a tool that evaluates your text according to the developed model. Writers accused him of plagiarizing/using the content of their works.
As an aside, this would be completely legal in Japan, as classification and statistical analysis are protected as fair-use. I wonder if similar language exists in other copyright systems, but I would imagine it is likely the opposite...
Are generative models also covered by that clause?
Because one thing about the generative models is that you could in theory get the model to recite copyrighted work, word by word.
That's silly. Humans review books all the time, using very similar words. Where's the outrage over that? This is manufactured, stretched, overhyped objections. I believe it's all as the OP suggests, because the word AI is in there. Not because anything illegal or immoral is going on. In fact it's a terribly useful tool, and once the mob cools off it'll likely return.
You are exactly modeling the chauvinistic Silicon Valley attitude that is causing the outrage in the general population to begin with. “Our algorithms are pretty much the same as human art criticism, so put down the pitchforks you unenlightened scum” is up there with telling them to eat (a Stable Diffusion generated picture of) cake.
Do you even know the meaning of chauvinism? Because this is literally the opposite of chauvinism. They aren't stating their view is superior, they just want it to exist.
open source it on IPFS and walk away, maybe call it something else and just drop the hashes on 4chan anonymously this reaction deserves the inevitable, as his only problem was it being attributed to him
How can he do it anonymously when we already know he's the only one who has it?
because nobody has seen the code, but everyone has seen what it does and can think of multiple ways to do it with AI
Sounds as though your view of the AI is purely positive, in that case. That's fair enough. The answer for other people may well not lie in the question (e.g. for all the people who don't like this development), but it did for you!
Sorry I did not understand that :-). My point was that it is different: when humans read a book, they don't train a machine learning model. They can't read as many books as a machine, at the same speed, and they can't remember nearly as much as what a machine can. Humans and computers are fundamentally different, and it matters. You can't conclude that because it works for one, it will fork for the other.
> Sorry I did not understand that :-)
You seemed to be saying that the differences I listed (quicker and more specific feedback) were the only differences. Those are both positive.
I was saying that some people may think there are negative differences as well.
Summary: prosecraft.io counted word occurrences and presented statistics about them. I don't think you even need fair use for this, because this is something you obviously are allowed to do, without any permissions. This is not generative AI, this is old school statistics. And then it sometimes presented a page worth of quoted text from a book. Which should fall under fair use. https://blog.shaxpir.com/taking-down-pr…
> counted word occurrences and presented statistics about them. I don't think you even need fair use for this, because this is something you obviously are allowed to do, without any permissions You're pretty much describing exactly what an LLM "learns" about text. I agree that it should obviously fall under fair use, but as the author of this article found out, there are quite a few who (very vocally) disagree.
I think there is a big difference in terms of data recovery though. You can't take a compression algorithm, for example, and claim that its "just some statistical analysis" when it can reproduce the original perfectly. Heck, even if it can reproduce it approximately, that's a lot different than what we see in this particular example, where the data could not be used to reproduce a text at all.
I’m with the artists on this one. Our obsession with converting everything into input for an algorithm that spits out an ill-defined number (what the hell is “vividness”?) needs to stop. We already tried this with human communication and gave birth to the dystopian nightmare that is social media, why keep repeating our mistakes?
> I’m with the artists on this one. Our obsession with converting everything into input for an algorithm that spits out an ill-defined number (what the hell is “vividness”?) needs to stop. Anyone who is with the artists should pass a law. Moral outrage is not law.
And promptly smack face first into the First Amendment. There is a reason they are going with moral outrage. Because they know they don't have the right.
I’m with the artists on this one. Our obsession with converting everything into input for an algorithm that spits out an ill-defined number (what the hell is “vividness”?) needs to stop. We already tried this with human communication and gave birth to the dystopian nightmare that is social media, why keep repeating our mistakes?
The guy who wrote code is also an artist, and he is allowed to publish his book reports.
If he says he didn't do something, the pitchfork mob will simply tell each other that he is lying. They will do this in the most confused and twisted way possible, driven by lack of understanding of what was happening combined with a need to drive outrage and thereby advertise their work. If he says he didn't intend to do that thing, this is still compatible with a later update that he didn't do that thing, but immed…
The best response, for us all collectively, is to always ignore everyone's opinion online. There is zero value in anything on reddit, twitter, facebook, the media these days. Just ignore it. All of it. Outrage or not. I see downvotes, but I mean it. You know who you listen to? Your friends. Your neighbours. Your local community. You listen to PEOPLE, not sockpuppets. You listen to legitimate human beings, not AI gene…
I'm genuinely curious, why do you post here if you have this mindset?
If you want to do this kind of thing, let authors opt-in (or publishers). Yes, it will take effort and probably go slow, but if the tool is really useful and amazing, it should be doable. I suspect the authors are put-off by a couple things: - the text of the works scanned seems like it may be from pirated sources. That poisons the project, no matter what it does with the scans, for many authors. - the use of these s…
> The article itself is clueless… it doesn’t engage authors’ concerns at all, and just portrays authors as stoopid AI-fearful luddites.
The authors quotes speak for themselves. They very clearly and ignorantly claimed that this was an "AI training project" when it was nothing of the sort.
What I find so odd about all this stuff is the target is very rarely OpenAI/ChatGPT. I understand it can be a useful tool, but if your concern is that AI has scanned your books without your consent and can generate new content in your writing style, then OpenAI is who you should be complaining about. Somehow the project with tens of billions of dollars in funding from Microsoft gets a free pass, but a two person pass…
> Somehow the project with tens of billions of dollars in funding from Microsoft gets a free pass, but a two person passion project that makes no money gets viciously attacked and killed. The same thing happened with generative art. The open source tools and smaller projects got served with lawsuits, but somehow DALL-E was not included in those.
Isn't it obvious? Bullies always go after easy targets. And nothing is more popular or loathsome than self-righteous causes for bullies.