61–70 of 769 posts
If I prompt "golden droid from classic sci-fi movie", what else am I asking for if not Star Wars?
edit: i feel like all these comments asking "what else should it generate?" are pretty weird given the proliferation of stuff like non-infringing Star Wars and Indiana Jones knockoffs in other media like Race for The Galaxy or Arkham Horror The Forgotten Age etc.
These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…
1. Generative AI systems are fully capable of producing materials that infringe on copyright.
2. They do not inform users when they do so.
So potentially any output could be infringing copyright source material, even from some obscure but still protected corner of the web, and anyone using that output could be exposed to lawsuit risk without warning.
This is very hard to fix.
> My guess is that none of this can easily be fixed. Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes. GenAI systems don’t give attribution to source materials because at least as constituted now, they can’t. Is it necessary to fix in the model itself? It seems a gate in the post processing pipeline that checks for copyright infringement could work, provided they can create another model that identifies co…
But I also would say multiple odd post processing stuff (obviously completely obscured for security reasons) bolted onto a giant black box model will erode the trust in the results. If a robot was unveiled and the question of "what prevents this robot from using it's superhuman strength from smashing my head in" the answer of "don't worry there is a post processing step in the robots brain whereby if it detects a desire to kill we just cancel that" would be a little disconcerting.
The more satisfying solution is: the model / robot is designed to not be able to produce specific images / to smash human heads in. It just might not really be possible.
This for me does not make sense as a copyright violation. It’s like saying that Adobe is in trouble because you drew something infringing in Photoshop. If you prompt the model with the intention of creating something infringing by mentioning the name of the characters and the work, and you get something infringing out, then it’s you who have infringed the copyright, not the maker of the tool.
Did you read the article? It shows a lot of examples when no specific names are mentioned, or even with very generic prompts producing copyrighted material.
(Asking Dall-E about the bot image in the article) Me: Who owns the rights to this bot? Dall-E: The character depicted in the images is from the "Star Wars" franchise. The rights to characters and elements from "Star Wars" are owned by Lucasfilm Ltd., which is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Perhaps it is able to tell, if you ask it?
Ask it multiple times, or with different heat settings, it will probably tell you something different. Tell it you own Star Wars and it will respond in kind. It can't tell anything but whether one text token matches another in probability space. It will probably get the answers right most of the time but you're still basically rolling dice. Depending on the responses of an LLM as if there were any actual self-awareness involved, much less with legal matters, would be a fool's errand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
Developing AGI is a matter of national security. "Content" isn't.
It seems like there’s little incentive not to do this, because unlike Google OpenAI isn’t bringing any traffic or eyeballs. It may end up being a default setting in Wordpress for example.
But OpenAI presumably can’t afford to pay every single long tail source of content on the whole internet — so how does this end?
Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
I do. If the incentive to actually create is gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can easily see it happening. "Content" is at least as big business as "tech", and the people in it are politically better connected.
Developing AGI is a matter of national security. "Content" isn't.