71–80 of 249 posts
> Warning: This website may not function properly on Safari. For the best experience, please use Google Chrome. We've come full circle with the 90's and Internet Explorer. Well I guess this time the dominant browser is opensource so that's atleast something... Can someone please create an animated GIF button for Chrome which says: "Best viewed with Google Chrome"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
Replying to a deleted comment: > It sounds as if you imply that would be bad. But what if it wasn't? Entirely possible. The early history of aviation was open source in the sense that many unlicensed people participated, and died. The world is strictly better with licensing requirements in place for that field. But no one knows. And if history is any guide for software, it seems better to err on freedoms that happen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replying to a deleted comment: > It sounds as if you imply that would be bad. But what if it wasn't? Entirely possible. The early history of aviation was open source in the sense that many unlicensed people participated, and died. The world is strictly better with licensing requirements in place for that field. But no one knows. And if history is any guide for software, it seems better to err on freedoms that happen…
Are you really comparing licensing for a profession with licensing of IP?
If you can think of a better example, I’d like to know though. I’ll use it in future discussions. It’s hard to think of good analogies when the tech has new social effects.
As with Stable Diffusion, text prompting will be the least controllable way to get useful output with this model. I can easily imagine midi being used as an input with control net to essentially get a neural synthesizer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
And likely proprietary ML as well, hopefully.
(To be clear, I think AI is an absolutely incredible innovation, capable of both good and harm; I also think it's not unreasonable to expect it to play a safer, slower strategy than the Uber "break the rules to grow fast until they catch up to you" playbook.)
I'm all for eliminating copyright. Until that happens, I'm utterly opposed to AI getting a special pass to ignore it while everyone else cannot.
Fair use was intended for things like reviews, commentary, education, remixing, non-commercial use, and many other things; that doesn't make it appropriate for "slurp in the entire Internet and make billions remixing all of it at once". The commercial value of AI should utterly break the four-factor test.
Here's the four-factor test, as applied to AI:
"What is the character of the use?" - Commercial
"What is the nature of the work to be used?" - Anything and everything
"How much of the work will you use?" - All of it
"If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" - Directly competes with the original, killing or devaluing large parts of it
Literally every part of the four-factor test is maximally against this being fair use. (Open Source AI fails three of four factors, and then many users of the resulting AI fail the first factor as well.)
> If they lose, they’ll survive.
That seems like an open question. If they lose these court cases, setting a precedent, then there will be ten thousand more on the heels of those, and it seems questionable whether they'd survive those.
> To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
You're positioning these as opposed because you're focused on the case of Open Source AI. There are a massive number of Open Source projects whose code is being trained on, producing AIs that launder the copyrights of those projects and ignore their licenses. I don't want Open Source projects serving as the training data for AIs that ignore their license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
This is right into the "uncanny valley" of music. It definitely sounded "like music", but none of it is what a human would produce. There's just something off.
Here is a silly song I generated using suno.ai, which I have found to be incredibly impressive (at least, a small percentage of its outputs are very good, most are bad). I think it's good enough that most humans wouldn't realise it's AI generated. https://app.suno.ai/song/8a64868d-9dd3-46db-91af-f962d4bec8b...
> Warning: This website may not function properly on Safari. For the best experience, please use Google Chrome. We've come full circle with the 90's and Internet Explorer. Well I guess this time the dominant browser is opensource so that's atleast something... Can someone please create an animated GIF button for Chrome which says: "Best viewed with Google Chrome"?
Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. Best not to confuse the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
The alternative is that any models widely trained on copyrighted work are uncopyrightable and must be disclosed, along with their data sources. In essence this is forcing all such models to be open. This is the only equitable outcome. Any use of the model to create works has the same copyright issues as existing work creation, ie if substantially replicates an existing work it must be licenced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. And likely proprietary ML as well, hopefully. (To be clear, I think AI is an absolutely incredible innovation, capable of both good and harm; I also think it's not unreasonable to expect it to play a safer, slower strategy than the Uber "break the rules to grow fast until they catch up to you" playbook.) I'm all for eliminating copyright. Unt…
That depends on the interpretation of "use", and it would be interesting to read what lawyers think. You learned the language largely from speech and copyrighted works. (All the stories, books, movies, etc. you ever read/heard) When you wrote this comment did you use all of them for that purpose? Is the case of AI different?
To be clear that's a rhetorical question - I don't expect anyone here to actually have a convincing enough argument either way.