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

GenChess

labs.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: GenChess

#211

Post by kmac_ »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #203
sbuttgereit wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the least wise things a person (or company) can do when faced with any law is to assume that it's "not complicated really." Much, much wiser to assume "there be dragons" and only engage once qualified legal counsel has helped you understand what compliance means to you. And along these lines... The second least wise thing to do in this scenario is listen to randos in a forum like this tell you, "but al…

The problem with thinking like yours is that legislation like GDPR is _really_ made to be simple and straightforward, but since companies whose livelihood depends on them abusing your privacy will fight it tooth and claw, they will gladly make it look like it's more complicated and insurmountable than it really is. They will also devise ways to comply in such ways that's most cumbersome for the end user and will read…

Second that. GDPR actually made those aspects clear and never caused a headache during implementations I've seen or participated in (more like a checkbox on a list). When I see any complaints, then it's clear some iffy user sniffing is happening.

Re: GenChess

#212

Post by sangnoir »

the8472 wrote: post #206
dbish wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably not nefarious and just generally not worth the headache of an EU release and going through the checks/requirements for an experiment or early beta. The many rules of the EU stifle speed and change the math for releasing something especially in a big company that has a variety of requirements built up over time to reduce litigation risk or being on the wrong side of one of the overreaching government off…

> going through the checks/requirements The process should be the reverse of that. Don't collect data unless you have been through the process of checking that it has a legal basis.

Typically the internal processes to verify what is/is not collected are mandated by launch region, not whether or not the initial version of the software does data collection.

Re: GenChess

#213

Post by michaelt »

mgoetzke wrote: post #186
supermatt wrote: post #172

Not available in the EU - so I guess the question is what are they collecting off you under the guise of playing chess that would require them to block EU users...

Yes, always suspicious. I mean the GDPR is not that complicated really, unless you really want to do personalized tracking

> I mean the GDPR is not that complicated really

Doesn't the EU also have an 'AI Act' that imposes additional rules, even when you're not tracking anyone?

And a lot of employers have legal teams who are extremely risk-averse, so even if it's obvious to you and me that rules about "deepfakes" don't apply to a tool for generating pictures of chess pieces made of cheese, doesn't mean legal will sign it off.

Re: GenChess

#214

Post by sbuttgereit »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #203
sbuttgereit wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the least wise things a person (or company) can do when faced with any law is to assume that it's "not complicated really." Much, much wiser to assume "there be dragons" and only engage once qualified legal counsel has helped you understand what compliance means to you. And along these lines... The second least wise thing to do in this scenario is listen to randos in a forum like this tell you, "but al…

The problem with thinking like yours is that legislation like GDPR is _really_ made to be simple and straightforward, but since companies whose livelihood depends on them abusing your privacy will fight it tooth and claw, they will gladly make it look like it's more complicated and insurmountable than it really is. They will also devise ways to comply in such ways that's most cumbersome for the end user and will read…

Ok... Let's assume this is true (which I'll reiterate, that I contend assuming so is foolish). What happens when courts have interpretations of this "simple law?" Do the courts make an effort to keep things simple and in plain language? Or do lawyers and bureaucrats do what they can to drive unintuitive interpretations, but favorable to their cause, of otherwise plain language? Are European laws such as this subject to the interpretive lens of case law? If so, the best intentions of legislators may only be secondary relative to the actual rulings and unintended consequence of their laws. The problem with thinking like yours is that it dismisses all of this messy reality in favor maintaining the idealism that might have motivated public support of the law.

Those that have to follow those laws need to care about the mess.

Re: GenChess

#215

Post by pdntspa »

pphysch wrote: post #41
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #24

Wait is this just an image generator? Am I missing something really cool here?

Look how easily they just fabricated 100% of a game's assets, with a consistent, high quality style, and then put them right into the game environment. That's the takeaway IMO. Very tight GenAI loop.

It generates textures yes.... but some of these outputs you might as well be showing the user a magenta-and-black placeholder texture

Re: GenChess

#216

Post by pdntspa »

dole wrote: post #205
ISL wrote: post #109

It didn't recognize essentially any photographer I suggested. Finally got something joyful when asked to create a chess-set inspired by "rooks". Least-playable chess-set ever :).

perhaps more of a weighting system on proper names and whether it’ll return copyrightable material, strange what works and what just doesn’t. “lisa frank” doesn’t work, but “a clone of lisa frank” does. “deiter rams” doesn’t work, neither does “a clone of deiter rams”, “facsimile”, “design language”…

after the whole Stable Diffusion 1.4 fiasco I think most genAI trainers removed artist names from their datasets

Re: GenChess

#217

Post by allenjhyang »

Very cool! Also makes me curious what will happen to this project next - will it morph into some other product or feature that we'll see a few months from now.

Anybody know of fun stories of what's happened to previous Google labs projects like this one?

Re: GenChess

#218

Post by allenjhyang »

mgoetzke wrote: post #186
supermatt wrote: post #172

Not available in the EU - so I guess the question is what are they collecting off you under the guise of playing chess that would require them to block EU users...

Yes, always suspicious. I mean the GDPR is not that complicated really, unless you really want to do personalized tracking

From my experience helping my company with GDPR, IMO it's true that the principles of GDPR are straightforward. But there can be a fair amount of ambiguity in how certain parts are interpreted, so in practice if you're taking it seriously (which every company should), you'll want to loop in your lawyers. Then there are more and more conversations to make sure everybody understands what the company is doing and what their stance is on GDPR.

Sadly, GDPR is not a black-and-white (pun intended with the chess project) checklist with black-and-white checklist items.

Re: GenChess

#219

Post by 6510 »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #204
6510 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm allowed to ask for all of the data they have from me. This obviously includes all chess games which obviously is a pain in the ass for a dumb demo that will no doubt be archived next week in some obscure place.

If you don't collect the data, you're not obligated to give it.

Google not collecting data from their demo?

Re: GenChess

#220

Post by the8472 »

sangnoir wrote: post #212
the8472 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> going through the checks/requirements The process should be the reverse of that. Don't collect data unless you have been through the process of checking that it has a legal basis.

Typically the internal processes to verify what is/is not collected are mandated by launch region, not whether or not the initial version of the software does data collection.

At work all our products do not eat children by default and it would require legal review to add any such feature. Therefore we don't need a procedure to make sure that any child-eating components get disabled in regions that have some concerns about child-eating.
Post reply on HN