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

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#231

Post by boothby »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #213
boothby wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are trained on works -- software, graphics and text -- covered by my copyright. What's the difference?

The difference is that you pulling out a model is you potentially violating copyright, while the model itself being trained on copyrighted models is potentially them violating copyrights. I.e. the first one concerns you, the other is none of your business.

Them potentially violating my copyrights is very much my business. But you're right, the difference is how much the respective parties have to spend on legal battles.

Simply showing up to court wearing a tshirt that says "what she said" probably wouldn't fly, but I like to imagine that any arguments made by them about their copyrights would be equally true of my copyrights.

At this point I'm mostly wondering if "you ripped me off first" is a viable legal defense to copyright battles where it's unclear if either party is distributing the works of the other. One thing is for sure though, if I were to do this as an individual, the discovery process would be much more expensive for them than me.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#232

Post by dang »

rob_c wrote: post #204
dang wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it feels that way, but people's perceptions of each other online are so distorted that this is just a recipe for massive conflict. That's off topic on HN because it isn't interesting.

I'm not referring to people's perceptions. Some people write with clearly inflated self worth built into their arguments. If writing style isn't related to rules of writing then we're just welcoming chaos through the back door. If we're at the point of defending people's literacy as a society than we've fallen into the Orwellian trap of goodspeek. I'm not insulting people I'm making a demonstrable statement that most…

> Some people write with clearly inflated self worth built into their arguments.

That's the kind of perception I'm talking about. I can tell you for sure, after all the years I've been doing this job, that such perceptions are anything but clear. They feel clear because that interpretation matches your priors, but such a feeling is not reliable, and when people use it as a basis for strongly-worded comments (e.g. "taking down a peg"), the result is conflict.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#233

Post by dang »

cess11 wrote: post #192
dang wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Does 'AI' pay your bills" was a gratuitous personal attack.

Is it? How? In your mind, does it imply some particular humiliation or something?

It's a variant of the "shill" argument, implying that the other person isn't posting in good faith.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#234

Post by rusk »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #152
rusk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I recall, it was the actual protection method that was protected by DMCA - when DVD protection was cracked it was forbidden to distribute a particular section of code so they just printed it on a Tee-shirt to troll the powers that be.

Presuming you are referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers... > Outside the Internet and the mass media, the key has appeared in or on T-shirts, poetry, songs and music videos, illustrations and other graphic artworks, tattoos and body art, and comic strips. Using the encryption key to decrypt the data on a DVD is illegal “circumvention” per DMCA 1201, if it’s done without autho…

Publishing the key is a crime but even “discovering” the key is a crime. My toy thought is that you could legally do key discovery using non-copyrighted media though of course now that I think about it why would it be ciphered in that case LOL

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#235

Post by [deleted] »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #71

"Keep in mind that AI models, like most things, are considered intellectual property. Before using or modifying any extracted models, you need the explicit permission of their owner." If weights and biases contained in "AI models" are prorietary, then for one model owner to detect infingement by another model owner, it may be necessary to download and extract.

[deleted]

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#236

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"Keep in mind that AI models, like most things, are considered intellectual property. Before using or modifying any extracted models, you need the explicit permission of their owner."

Is that really true. Is the law settled in this area. Is it the same everywhere or does it vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

See, e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42617889

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#237

Post by 1oooqooq »

antman wrote: post #151
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?

Had to look it up, this seems to be the paper https://research.google/pubs/federated-learning-for-mobile-k...

they have a very "interesting" definition of private data on the paper. it's so outlandish that if you buy their definition, there's zero value on the trained data. heh.

they also claim unsuppervisioned users typing away is better than tagged training data, which explain the wild grammar suggestions on the top comment. guess the age of quantity over quality is finally peaking.

in the end it's the same as grammarly but without any verification of the interested data, and calling the collection of user data "federation"

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#238

Post by cess11 »

dang wrote: post #233
cess11 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? How? In your mind, does it imply some particular humiliation or something?

It's a variant of the "shill" argument, implying that the other person isn't posting in good faith.

Sorry, I don't follow. How do you arrive at that implication? Why would someone having a pecuniary interest in something necessarily make them insincere?

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#239

Post by int_19h »

baxtr wrote: post #114
int_19h wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. It's still a derived work.

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

I'm fine with us ditching copyright altogether.

But as things are, the megacorps are training their LLMs on the commons while asserting "intellectual property" rights on the resulting weights. So, fuck them, and cheers to those who try to do something about this state of affairs.

Re: Extracting AI models from mobile apps

#240

Post by dragonwriter »

drdeca wrote: post #113
Mordisquitos wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the resulting AI models are protected by copyright that invalidates the claim that AI models being trained on copyrighted materials is fair-use analogous to human beings becoming educated by exposure to copyrighted materials. Educated human beings are not protected by copyright, hence neither should trained AI models. Conversely, if a copyrightable work is produced based on work which itself is copyrighted, the re…

If I take 1000 books and count the distributions of the lengths of the words, and the covariance between the lengths of one word and the next word for each book, and how much this covariance matrix tends to vary across the different books, and other things like this, and publish these summaries, it seems fairly clear to me that this should count as fair use. (Such a model/statistical-summary, along with a dictionary,…

> The particular choice of statistical analysis does seem like it may involve creative decision making

The selection and structuring of the training set may involve sufficient creativity to be copyrightable (as demonstrated by the existence of “compilation copyrights”), even if it is largely or even entirely composed of existing works, the statistical analysis part doesn't have to be the source of the creativity.

Post reply on HN