141–150 of 442 posts
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…
One is how it works consistently with the current law. Ml model is basically a highly lossy compressed data format. If you collect millions of copyrighted images, merge them into a super big image, then compress it into a .jpg. Are you allowed to redistribute this .jpg file?
To me, it's mostly depending on how lossy (low quality) your .jpg is.
(Note the fact that human brains are also lossy compressed data is completely irrelevant here: you can only compare machine to machine, algorithm to algorithm. You can't say if a human has right to do X, therefore a machine has the same right to do X.)
But this line of thinking, while consistent to me, is dangerous. Because it means open models like Stability Diffusion are more likely to be illegal than a closed one like MidJourney, since it's closer to the source materials. If closed models end up being legal but open models don't, it would be a big loss for our society as a whole.
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…
It's just not that different from people seeing works and learning or being inspired, so how do you "ban AI" without adding more crazy DRM/DMCA stuff for legitimate use?
Having done way more corporate court than I want (patents, mergers, liquidation), I’m increasingly convinced that the judicial system is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that the law in 2023 US is so obscure and opaque and how judges come to their ruling seems to be by their total whim with no actual philosophy other than maintenance of the system. Further I’m extremely unimpressed with the vast majority of judge…
Not to be too rude, but you’re not an attorney and couldn’t be more wrong. The law has never been more transparent. The public has nearly complete access to every docket in the country. Moreover, the level of jurisprudence has never been higher. Moreover, I’ve lost a case or two in my time, but it was never because of a lack of a warchest.
Hey quick question, my good friend, lets call him Doug is a high school equivalency graduate, has a few felonies and currently works as a road flagger
How does this complete access to every docket in the country help him?
You have more perfectly explained my point better than I could have. Thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us the sum total of our experiences and that includes copy written work. Holding an LLM guilty for that is like holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work.
This argument gets repeated often enough that it implies that there are a significant number of people who actually believe it. This is pretty depressing, as the only way you could think that a human is not fundamentally more capable of creativity than an LLM is if you are incapable of imagining anything other than a life of ‘consuming content’.
Having done way more corporate court than I want (patents, mergers, liquidation), I’m increasingly convinced that the judicial system is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that the law in 2023 US is so obscure and opaque and how judges come to their ruling seems to be by their total whim with no actual philosophy other than maintenance of the system. Further I’m extremely unimpressed with the vast majority of judge…
The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us the sum total of our experiences and that includes copy written work. Holding an LLM guilty for that is like holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work.
Moreover, at least in the case of music, people have been successfully sued when their song strongly resembles another copyrighted work. Thus "holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work" is actually the status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A diffusion model can't make a copy. That's the whole point. The original Picasso isn't in the model weights. It has learned to make pixels a particular color to mimic that style, but that's it.
If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. Same thing in Artstation. It was of course propitious for AI scientists to find such a lovely database of high quality imagery, and all so helpfully tagged into categories. All…
You claimed the model can reproduce an image from that training data. That's false, and what the judge dismissed.
“none of the Stable Diffusion output images provided in response to a
particular Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for any specific image in
the training data.”
“I am not convinced that copyright claims based a derivative theory can
survive absent ‘substantial similarity’ type allegations,” the ruling stated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant. You said “it’s the law”. I responded with “it’s the law”. You lack consistency, more at 12. I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it…
I dont care about what holds universally “true” in some peole’s minds about _my_ property. That’s communism. I am an individual therefore i care about _my_ ownership. Communism wanted to make everything belong to everyone. Philosophical darwinism proved that that concept is wrong. What’s mine is mine, period. I never pirate software and no, I dont think piracy is a good idea either. I believe in open source and that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A diffusion model can't make a copy. That's the whole point. The original Picasso isn't in the model weights. It has learned to make pixels a particular color to mimic that style, but that's it.
If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. Same thing in Artstation. It was of course propitious for AI scientists to find such a lovely database of high quality imagery, and all so helpfully tagged into categories. All…
> This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place.
I haven't seen anyone making this argument. There's a pretty clear difference between learning something from an image and memorizing it.
There also isn't any illegal with memorizing an image and painting a reproduction. What you aren't allowed to do is sell or distribute that reproduction without a license.
I think it makes more sense to restrict what people are allowed do with ML tools than to restrict what ML tools can do.
Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…