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

Extracting AI models from mobile apps

altayakkus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#161

Post by rob_c »

cmiles74 wrote: post #92
philwelch wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.

I don't see how this is a double standard. Comparing a person interacting with their culture is not comparable in any way. IMHO, it's kind of a wacky argument to make.

That's a little simplistic. You're almost trying to say blank and white sands gray can't be compared which is a bit weird.

Strangely like the situation itself.

The question is just looked to how can we guarantee a model is influenced rather than memorising an input?

And then is a human who is influenced simply relying on a faulty or less than perfect memory?

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#162

Post by cmiles74 »

crazygringo wrote: post #98
tekno45 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're asking why you have to treat people differently than you treat tools and machines.

Well obviously not in general. But when it comes to copyright law specifically, yes absolutely. That is the question I'm asking.

It has never been argued that copyright law should apply to information the people learn, whether that be from reading books or newspapers, watching television or appreciating art like paintings or photographs.

Unlike a person, an large language model is product built by a company and sold by a company. While I am not a lawyer, I believe much of the copyright arguments around LLM training revolve around the idea that copyrighted content should be licensed by the company training the LLM. In much the same way that people are not allowed to scrape the content of the New York Time website and then pass it off as their own content, so should OpenAI be barred from scraping the New York Times website to train ChatGPT and then sell the service without providing some dollars back to the New York Times.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#164

Post by cmiles74 »

philwelch wrote: post #104
dijksterhuis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a human being, and one that does music stuff, i don’t download terabytes of other peoples works from the internet directly into my brain. i don’t have verbatim reproductions of people’s work sitting around on a hard disk in my stomach/lungs/head/feet. LLMs are not humans. They’re essentially a probabilistic compression algorithm (encode data into model weights/decode with prompt to retrieve data).

Do you ever listen to music? Is your music ever influenced by the music that you listen to? How do you imagine that works, in an information-theoretical sense, that fundamentally differs from an LLM? Depending on how much music you've listened to, you very well may have "downloaded terabytes" of it into your brain. Your argument is specious.

Information on how large language models are trained is not hard to come by, there are numerous articles that cover this material. Even a brief skimming of this material will make it clear that the training of large language models is materially different in almost every way from how human beings "learn" and build knowledge. There are still many open questions around the process of how humans collect, store, retrieve and synthesize information.

There is little mystery to how large language models function and it's clear that their output is parroting back portions of their training data, the quality of output degrades greatly when novel input is provided. Is your argument that people fundamentally function in the same way? That would be a bold and novel assertion!

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#165

Post by Lerc »

dang wrote: post #142
jonpo wrote: post #16

Well done you seem to have liberated an open model trained on open data for blind and visually impaired people. Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03738 Code: https://github.com/microsoft/banknote-net Training data: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/banknote-net/ref... model: https://github.com/microsoft/banknote-net/blob/main/models/b... Kinda easier to download it straight from github. Its licenced under M…

> But lets not let that get in the way of hating on AI shall we? Can you please edit this kind of thing out of your HN comments? (This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .) It leads to a downward spiral, as one can see in the progression to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42604422 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42604728 . That's what we're trying to avoid here.…

Can you clarify this a bit. I presume you are talking about the tone more than the implied statement.

If the last sentence were explicit rather than implied, for instance

This article seems to be serving the growing prejudice against AI

Is that better? It is still likely to be controversial and the accuracy debatable, but it is at least sincere and could be the start of a reasonable conversation, provided the responders behave accordingly.

I would like people to talk about controversial things here if they do so in a considerate manner.

I'd also like to personally acknowledge how much work you do to defuse situations on HN. You represent an excellent example of how to behave. Even when the people you are talking to assume bad faith you hold your composure.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#166

Post by xvector »

bayindirh wrote: post #121
xvector wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely monetize works altered under fair use.

Any examples sans current AI models? I have not seen any, or failed to find any, to precise.

Basically any YouTube video that shows another YouTube video, song, movie, etc. as part of something else (eg a voiceover.)

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#167

Post by cess11 »

dang wrote: post #143
cess11 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you please edit swipes out of your HN comments? Your post would be fine with just the first sentence. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

What do you mean, "swipe"? The other person agreed they'd misjudged the article and apologised several hours before you wrote this.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#168

Post by cess11 »

jonpo wrote: post #63
cess11 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes nothing wrong with cool software or showing people how to use it for useful things. Sorry I'm just kind of sick of the whole 'kool aid', 'rage against AI' thing a lot of people seem to have going on and the way is presented in the post. I have family members with vision impairment helped by this particular app so its a bit personal. Nothing against opening stuff up and understanding how it works etc. I'd just rat…

In my view there was almost nothing like that in this article, besides the first sentence it went right into the technical stuff, which I liked. Compared to a lot of articles linked here it felt almost free from the battles between "AI" fashions.

It seems dang thinks I mistreated you somehow, if you agree I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#169

Post by vlovich123 »

nthingtohide wrote: post #24

One thing I noticed in Gboard is it uses homeomorphic encryption to do federated learning of common words used amongst public to do encrypted suggestions. E.g. there are two common spelling of bizarre which are popular on Gboard : bizzare and bizarre. Can something similar help in model encryption?

In theory yes, in practice right now no. Homomorphic encryption is too computationally expensive.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#170

Post by jampekka »

thedailymail wrote: post #132
baxtr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well what isn’t in this world? Would Einstein would have been possible without Newton?

Newton was public domain by Einstein's time.

Indeed. Copyright was introduced in 1710, Principia was published in 1687.
Post reply on HN