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

AI Data Laundering

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: AI Data Laundering

#21

Post by numpad0 »

echelon wrote: post #6
moyix wrote: post #3

The Authors Guild v Google decision about Google Books seems relevant: > In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's summary judgement in October 2015, ruling Google's "proj…

Do we allow artists to withhold their works from the minds of eager, learning children? [1] Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. For every billion dollar start-up using data at scale, there are tens of thousands more researchers and hobbyists doing the exact same, producing wonderful results and advances. If we stop this growth dead in the tracks, other countries more w…

The criticism is that AI works are not transformative, but are recognizable “regurgitation” of training set.

It’s not that AIs are too good. They look like crude knockoff products to trained eyes. And crude knockoffs are usually considered bad things.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#23

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

jstanley wrote: post #18
ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not remotely the same, scale and barrier to entry matter. With stable diffusion I can pick any artist right now and create over 1000 derivative works by tomorrow morning in his style to the same degree of expertise with no training involved and no work required.

That's good! Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.

I wouldn't be so confident one way or another, this is too new. I think it's going to make a lot of things way more accessible and enable people to express their creative voice who couldn't before. On the other hand you're looking at the destruction of a lot of professions, and possibly overnight with the speed things are moving at. I think if we told every software engineer their skills were entirely obsolete and they had change career tomorrow the reception would be much colder.

I remember when I started working on generative models in 2015, you could barely generate a picture of a blurry 40x40 pixels face. Two years later 1024x1024 almost indistinguishable from reality. Now every week we have a new revolutionary application coming out.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#24

Post by learndeeply »

> But then Meta is using those academic non-commercial datasets to train a model, presumably for future commercial use in their products. Weird, right?

This is a very strong and likely inaccurate presumption.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#25

Post by echelon »

numpad0 wrote: post #21
echelon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we allow artists to withhold their works from the minds of eager, learning children? [1] Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. For every billion dollar start-up using data at scale, there are tens of thousands more researchers and hobbyists doing the exact same, producing wonderful results and advances. If we stop this growth dead in the tracks, other countries more w…

The criticism is that AI works are not transformative, but are recognizable “regurgitation” of training set. It’s not that AIs are too good. They look like crude knockoff products to trained eyes. And crude knockoffs are usually considered bad things.

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal."

A lot of artists get started with tracing before taking off the training wheels. You also see new art styles quickly proliferate across the entire community, so clearly there's some unspoken copying happening.

These models are producing new works in nearly identical styles. That's something a trained human could conceivably do.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#27

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

jstanley wrote: post #18
ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not remotely the same, scale and barrier to entry matter. With stable diffusion I can pick any artist right now and create over 1000 derivative works by tomorrow morning in his style to the same degree of expertise with no training involved and no work required.

That's good! Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.

I think that the argument, overall, is that there are questions as to the legality of certain applications of the technology.

Society needs to change the laws regarding the preservation of value of intellectual labor, as has long been suggested.

Acting like the law doesn’t matter is a bad thing, if we are making value judgements.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#28

Post by echelon »

nightski wrote: post #11
echelon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we allow artists to withhold their works from the minds of eager, learning children? [1] Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. For every billion dollar start-up using data at scale, there are tens of thousands more researchers and hobbyists doing the exact same, producing wonderful results and advances. If we stop this growth dead in the tracks, other countries more w…

Well a toddler isn’t making money off the information they are absorbing for one. If these are open to the public models that is one thing. But no, these are proprietary models whose sole purpose is to make money for large corporations.

Artists and engineers do exactly this. It just takes a decade.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#29

Post by TigeriusKirk »

authpor wrote: post #4
moyix wrote: post #3

The Authors Guild v Google decision about Google Books seems relevant: > In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's summary judgement in October 2015, ruling Google's "proj…

> I think allowing people to exclude themselves or their work from a dataset is necessary. or they could open it all up for everybody and stop protecting the rights of death people (authors dead less then 70 years ago) then again, that will make the publishers starve... but why pretend publishing corporations need food?

My personal ideal outcome is that there's no opting out of having your intellectual output included in the training, but the resulting model is as a result available freely to the public.

In my utopia, the end results are models containing the sum total of human output, available to everyone.

What I think is unconscionable is training the models on public works and then retaining them exclusively for private use.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#30

Post by authpor »

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #16
authpor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is larger than the arts. anybody has ever participated creatively in our culture understands that it's absolute bullshit to pretend we need money in order to want to contribute artistically. we need money because food is for sale, because most of us do not own where we live hence we are forced (a priori) to come up with a whole lot of money every month or else you're out in the streets.

Sure but unless you bring down capitalism people will still need to work to eat and most will want to use their hard-earned creative skills to make a living. Not only that but being able to dedicate 8 to 10 hours a day to your craft for 40 years bring it to a level that you can't reach with casual practice.

capitalism cannot be brought down. this one must fall on its own.

I consider France one of the best examples of capitalism https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1683661/paris-protests-...

Post reply on HN