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

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: AI Data Laundering

#81

Post by JediLuke »

knome wrote: post #76
heavyset_go wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luddites weren't some cult of ignorant technophobes, they were highly-skilled middle class craftsmen and small business owners who went from being able to provide for their families to dying in utter destitution. The remainder of them were tried for machine breaking and were either executed by the state or exiled to penal colonies. They risked everything because everything was at stake, I have a hard time saying…

Certainly, but automation is what allows for improvement to the whole. Today, clothing is cheap and plentiful, along with bedding, curtains, towels and other cloth materials. Clothing would be outrageously expensive if everything were still hand spun, hand loomed, hand cut, hand sewn, and hand screened. If the human computers[1] that predated the rise of the machine computer had done the same and won, it would have c…

No post body was provided.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#82

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

natch wrote: post #78
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33194623 for some initial thoughts on how this problem (and others) could be rectified

So, an AI Karen? >the generative AI system censors any output containing a category of error I can see the ruleset now… "This picture of a woman is revealing hair, so it must be censored because it is objectionable to some people and we must respect all people whose beliefs are guided in a sanctioned way." "This picture shows unadulterated fun, which must be censored because…" etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe…

Or more to the point, “this picture contains copyrighted material, which must be censored because…”

etc.

I tried to be as general as possible.

The training data for a self-censorship neural network could be as robust as any given society would like.

An algorithm based on self-censorship of generated output wouldn’t require censorship within the training data for the generative neural network.

I can imagine some other advantages to that approach.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#83

Post by gpm »

pavlov wrote: post #63
VanTheBrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

AI image generators are clearly not a market substitute for images, they are a tool that can be used to create market substitutes, but not themselves one.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#84

Post by wodenokoto »

killjoywashere wrote: post #13

> It’s currently unclear if training deep learning models on copyrighted material is a form of infringement What? It's clearly a derived work.

I'm pretty sure I can count the number of words in Harry Potter without breaking copyright law.

It is absolutely not clear when statistical models stops counting ngrams and starts making a derived works.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#85

Post by dleslie »

authpor wrote: post #66
nine_k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Housing will always be a competitive market so long as location matters. Access to education and health care are themselves some of reasons why location matters, and a home in an urban core is priced higher than one in a far remote community.

Even in communist countries you find competition for housing as a result of the intrinsic value of location.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#86

Post by moonchrome »

pavlov wrote: post #63
VanTheBrand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can we first get an AI that's actually usefull as a Getty substitute? All I'm seeing posted is visually pleasing nonsense - as soon as I tried to use it for stuff like stock photo generator it's unusable (eg. key physical properties of the object would be off to the point where the object is useless, and in many cases it would look wrong even from a thumbnail).

The only thing I did see was designers cropping out the wrong part and filling in the blanks - I suppose it's competing with stock photos in that aspect.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#87

Post by IanCal »

boppo1 wrote: post #74
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…

>No longer do we need to pay 20,000 hours to learn one thing to the exclusion of all others we would like to try. Now we'll be able to clearly articulate ourselves with art, music, poetry. We'll become powerful beings of thought and expression. I'm a 20000 hours person. Knowing what I know about what I do, it's real sad to see someone misunderstand what goes into creativity this egregiously. Prompt engineering is suc…

You can prompt with images, which let's you control colour and composition, and with masking you can iteratively work on sections to guide the image to what you are picturing. That can shift the creative part more towards the user.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#88

Post by natch »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #82
natch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, an AI Karen? >the generative AI system censors any output containing a category of error I can see the ruleset now… "This picture of a woman is revealing hair, so it must be censored because it is objectionable to some people and we must respect all people whose beliefs are guided in a sanctioned way." "This picture shows unadulterated fun, which must be censored because…" etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe…

Or more to the point, “this picture contains copyrighted material, which must be censored because…” etc. I tried to be as general as possible. The training data for a self-censorship neural network could be as robust as any given society would like. An algorithm based on self-censorship of generated output wouldn’t require censorship within the training data for the generative neural network. I can imagine some other…

But literally (and I use that word literally) none of the pictures contain copyrighted material.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#89

Post by [deleted] »

authpor wrote: post #66
nine_k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: AI Data Laundering

#90

Post by noduerme »

I've got a couple examples of Stable Diffusion replicating watermarks along with similar swatches of imagery into scenes from the same prompt [1]. A single case of this should be enough to file a massive lawsuit if the art were recognizable to the creator.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33061707

Post reply on HN