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

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: AI Data Laundering

#31

Post by numpad0 »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #15
tpmoney wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substitute for what though? Copyright law is only concerned with substituting the work under copyright. That is to say, the consideration is whether the infringing aspects of the secondary work would alter the demand and market for the work being infringed. In all the talk about AI data laundering there really hasn't been any indication that the AI generated item substitutes for the item it's alleged to infringe on…

Stock photography seems to be the obvious instance - why bother paying for the labor to make a stock photo, when you can have a generative AI system create the photo for you? And furthermore, has anyone demonstrated that it is or is not possible to fully, or substantially, recreate any given existing work using the right input prompts? I’m interested to know more of the legal details, but my understanding of copyrigh…

So the value proposition is, it’s the exact same thing, but you won’t be paying for it because it’s not THE exact same thing?

Re: AI Data Laundering

#32

Post by numpad0 »

echelon wrote: post #25
numpad0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but when couple lines match up with existing arts, you go up in flames and you change the careers. NAI is doing the first half of that.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#33

Post by greysphere »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #19
greysphere wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most machine learning is assigning weights in a chain of matrix multiplications and normalization functions. There is no known experimentally verifyiable model of toddlers' brains, let alone one based on matrix multiplication and normalization. Developing such a model would be a noteworthy achievement. Therefore these are different.

Some Artificial Neural Networks have been shown to significantly (at least up to 50% concordance) model brain function. Not the mention the laborious work of neuroscientists to build out the connectome of the human brain.

Two systems that produce the same output for some set of inputs doesn't show the systems are the same. My phone can produce the same results as my brain for short arithmetic problems. My phone is not a brain.

The neuroscientists I know in the field would be among the first to tell you that our ability to model the brain is nearly non existent. In fact we don't even have a great model of a single neuron [1]. This statement doesn't invalidate the work folks are doing to try and reach that goal. Biology is hard.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model

Re: AI Data Laundering

#34

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

numpad0 wrote: post #31
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock photography seems to be the obvious instance - why bother paying for the labor to make a stock photo, when you can have a generative AI system create the photo for you? And furthermore, has anyone demonstrated that it is or is not possible to fully, or substantially, recreate any given existing work using the right input prompts? I’m interested to know more of the legal details, but my understanding of copyrigh…

So the value proposition is, it’s the exact same thing, but you won’t be paying for it because it’s not THE exact same thing?

As I understand it, that would be skirting the law and philosophical principles behind protectionism for intellectual labor.

If society doesn’t value commodity intellectual labor, then society may need to address the commoditization of intellectual labor, directly, through things like UBI / vocational rehabilitation, etc.

Similar arguments can be made about robots and the commoditization of manual labor.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#35

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #29
authpor wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#36

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

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.

> 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.

The concept of a UBI (universal basic income) isn’t inherently in conflict with capitalism. I believe that it is actually in coherence with the idea of Universal Human Rights, as defined by the UN in the 1940s.

Perhaps that would be the culmination of anything good about capitalism.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#37

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

greysphere wrote: post #33
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some Artificial Neural Networks have been shown to significantly (at least up to 50% concordance) model brain function. Not the mention the laborious work of neuroscientists to build out the connectome of the human brain.

Two systems that produce the same output for some set of inputs doesn't show the systems are the same. My phone can produce the same results as my brain for short arithmetic problems. My phone is not a brain. The neuroscientists I know in the field would be among the first to tell you that our ability to model the brain is nearly non existent. In fact we don't even have a great model of a single neuron [1]. This stat…

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33197285

Re: AI Data Laundering

#39

Post by harry8 »

mkaic wrote: post #8
ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is larger than publishers, this is every artist, film-maker, photographer, every writer, every engineer, anybody who has ever written or created something and shared it publicly is liable to have their work assimilated and an infinite amount of derivatives produced with no control over how they're used and by whom. Comment generated with gpt-neox prompt: Comment about AI and data collection and generation and it…

> anybody who has ever written or created something and shared it publicly is liable to have their work assimilated and an infinite amount of derivatives produced with no control over how they're used and by whom. This has been the case ever since people started putting their art on the Internet publicly. The only difference is that now it's algorithms creating the derivatives, not people.

Yeah before the internet it never happened and nobody knew just how damn cliched Bill Shakespeare's plays are. Every line of Hamlet's soliloquy! It's insane!

Re: AI Data Laundering

#40

Post by XorNot »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #12
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…

> Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. If a person published a work that clearly plagiarized or violated a patent, that person would be open to legal action. I’m all for systemic change, but uses like this may end up having a chilling effect on human-created work.

> I’m all for systemic change, but uses like this may end up having a chilling effect on human-created work.

Everytime this comes up, whichever party fears for it's livelihood always says something like this and ignores the other side: that rigorous enforcement activity is going to do the same thing, to human created work. Richard Stallman wrote a short story about this very issue.[1]

There are already people hurling abuse around on Twitter at artists because they think that something they made was produced with Stable Diffusion or something else.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Post reply on HN