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

Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 354 posts

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #259
0points wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was specifically involving 13 authors. There hasn't been any trials yet about the millions of copyrighted books, movies and other content they evidently used.

There's no reason to think those cases will go any differently. As far as I know, the ruling would have to be appealed at this point. I am only commenting to say that there is reason to think this is true: > But isn't it already known and admitted (and allowed?) You seemed to be confused about why this person believed that: > No, and I don't see where you got that from. And I wrote a comment intended to dispel your c…

> There's no reason to think those cases will go any differently. As far as I know, the ruling would have to be appealed at this point.

Trial court rulings aren't binding precedent even on the same court in different cases, so its quite possible that different cases at the trial level can reach different conclusions on fair use on fairly similar facts, given the lack of appellate precedent directly on point with AI training.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#262

Post by nhecker »

pferde wrote: post #81
wahnfrieden wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whisper MUST be combined with silence detection / VAD

Ah, the good old "you're holding it wrong". What good is a speech recognition tool that literally hears imaginary voices?

>imaginary voices

On the other hand, I can imagine that when things get quiet and the signal-to-noise ratio gets close to zero, random background audio (or randomness introduced in the transcription model) will be enough to tickle a critical number of neurons and elicit hallucinations.

The related thought exercise is this: Try scanning across the band with an AM or sideband radio, and after a while your brain will start to wonder "was that a voice I just heard, or music perhaps?" when in reality it was just environmental static.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #207
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same as piracy though. He wasn't downloading millions of scientific papers from libgen or sci-hub, he was downloading them directly from jstor. Indeed, none of his charge was for copyright infringement. It was for stuff like "breaking and entering" and "unauthorized access to a computer network".

The exact same charges could apply to the AI scrapers illegitimately accessing random websites.

No, they couldn't, since the then-novel and untested strained interpretation of the CFAA that the prosecutor was relying on has since been tested in the courts and soundly rejected.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#264

Post by snickerdoodle12 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #251
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I download copyrighted material like the new disney movie with fansubs and watch it for training purposes instead of enjoyment purposes it's fine? In that case I've just been training myself, your honor. No, no, I'm not enjoying these TV shows. Because it's important to grasp the scale of these copyright violations: * They downloaded, and admitted to using, Anna's Archive: Millions of books and papers, most of…

I don't know what is confusing here, perhaps my comment isn't clear. If you skirt payment, its a violation. If it's free, but still copyright, it's likely not a violation.

They've done both, so my confusion is about why you are bringing this up?

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#265

Post by snickerdoodle12 »

kube-system wrote: post #238
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact same charges could apply to the AI scrapers illegitimately accessing random websites.

I haven’t seen any accusations that they’ve done that, though. Usually people get pirated material from sources that intentionally share pirated material.

They're not just training on pirated content, they've also scraped literally the entire internet and used that too.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#266

Post by kmeisthax »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #211
shadowgovt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a lot of court activity on this topic, but the law moves slowly and is reluctant to issue injunctions where harm is not obvious. It's more that the law about "one guy decides to pirate twelve movies to watch them at home and share with his buddies" is already well-settled, but the law about "a company pirates 10,000,000 pieces to use as training data for an AI model (a practice that the law already s…

There is a distinction that must be made that very few people do, but thankfully the courts seems to grasp: Training on copyright is a separate claim than skirting payment for copyright. Which pretty much boils down to: "If they put it out there for everyone to see, it's probably OK to train on it, if they put it behind a paywall and you don't pay, the training part doesn't matter, it's a violation."

[dead]

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#267

Post by snickerdoodle12 »

gruez wrote: post #225
codedokode wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got in trouble for filming in the cinema as I understand, there is a separate law for that.

But in that case even though filming isn't technically distribution, it's clearly a step to distributing copies? To take this to the extreme, suppose you ripped a blu-ray, made a thousand copies, but haven't packaged or sold them yet. If the FBI busted in, you'd probably be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" at the very least.

It's just "training"

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#268

Post by d1sxeyes »

0points wrote: post #236
d1sxeyes wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").

Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.

There is indeed, but not when you’re torrenting (i.e. you can’t download without also uploading).

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#269

Post by 0points »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #259
0points wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was specifically involving 13 authors. There hasn't been any trials yet about the millions of copyrighted books, movies and other content they evidently used.

There's no reason to think those cases will go any differently. As far as I know, the ruling would have to be appealed at this point. I am only commenting to say that there is reason to think this is true: > But isn't it already known and admitted (and allowed?) You seemed to be confused about why this person believed that: > No, and I don't see where you got that from. And I wrote a comment intended to dispel your c…

Yea, no. I don't think I am confused.

A single verdict about a specific case (13 authors vs META) does not mean it's legal for companies to steal IP from other companies which has evidently been going on for some years now.

Those other companies have lawyers powerful enough to change jurisdiction in many countries in order to "protect their IP".

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#270

Post by 0points »

gruez wrote: post #260
0points wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are two separate things: * Making content available for unauthorized distribution * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.

But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?

Both are illegal, yes.

That still doesn't make them the same thing. There are different shades of grey, etc.

> Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Post reply on HN