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

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: AI Data Laundering

#61

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

visarga wrote: post #57
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?

For the first time there is a chance for Mickey Mouse to be free, I mean "In-the-style-of-Mickey-Mouse", his new name. When did we ever get such a chance for information freedom?

The Renaissance comes to mind: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

Re: AI Data Laundering

#62

Post by [deleted] »

pixl97 wrote: post #44
VanTheBrand wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the horse is out of the gate on photocopiers and before them printing presses but that doesn't make using them without the rights to what you are copying legal

I would go as far to say a vast amount of our creative economic output would cease tomorrow if we had strict 'right to read' copyright enforcement. You can also thank Disney for extending copyright beyond all reason.

[deleted]

Re: AI Data Laundering

#63

Post by pavlov »

VanTheBrand wrote: post #20
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 would argue (as the court did) that google's use is transformative because the end result "book search" is in a different marketplace from "books." The end result / output of these generative AI systems trained on stock media and art is..."stock media and art." That's kind of what this whole article is about. Just training the systems in research is arguably fair use but creating the entire pipeline might not be an…

The court’s summary also mentions this aspect of differing marketplaces:

“… the revelations [i.e. the information served by Google Book Search] do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”

This doesn’t apply to AI image generators which are clearly a “market substitute” for the protected originals used to train the system. For this reason I’d expect someone like Getty to want to revisit Authors Guild v Google sooner rather than later.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#64

Post by mattkrause »

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…

As a working neuroscientist, I’ll co-sign this!

Understanding 50% of the brain, whatever that would even mean, is an utter fantasy.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#65

Post by nerdponx »

learndeeply wrote: post #24

> 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.

Is it? Maybe they have their own internal version they are using, but who's to say they aren't fine tuning the model and applying it somewhere?

Re: AI Data Laundering

#66

Post by authpor »

nine_k wrote: post #52
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The problem is that UBI is in conflict with arithmetics. Short of near-total redistribution, it's impossible to provide a decent level of UBI for everyone. Total redistribution doesn't work, because economy needs markers as ways of price / demand discovery, and markets apparently lead to power-law distribution, not flat. IMHO, the realistic option is a thick enough safety net for those who is going through a rough sp…

just make sure basic necessities (housing, education, medicine) stay out of the market economy.

the 'market economy' (capitalism) is good at some things, but terrible at others. we need to stop collectively using this social-technology (a kind of market super optimizer) in the wrong places.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#67

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

mattkrause wrote: post #64
greysphere wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a working neuroscientist, I’ll co-sign this! Understanding 50% of the brain, whatever that would even mean, is an utter fantasy.

I should have clarified that I was talking about the specific brain function of semantic comprehension.

I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near having a complete analytical model of 50% of the brain.

I am suggesting that we do have tools to continue answering questions about functional aspects of the brain.

Or am I missing something that indicates the non-utility of “function analysis” of biology-based artificial neural networks?

Re: AI Data Laundering

#68

Post by ksidudwbw »

authpor wrote: post #10
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…

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.

Learn to code! Oh wait...

Re: AI Data Laundering

#70

Post by [deleted] »

echelon wrote: post #28
nightski wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN