81–90 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.
If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing, then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot even hold copyright itself?
Won't a simple downsample->upsample be the antidote?
AI image exclusion standard
, similar to "robots.txt" -- which would tell an AI data-gathering web crawler that a given image or set of images -- was off-limits for use as data?
EDIT: I have seen a few examples with GPT-4 V and how I imagine it wasn't deceived, I doubt this technique can have any impact on the quality of the models, the only impact that this could potentially have honestly is to make the training more robust.
Eventually I assume the poisoning artifacts introduced in the images will be very visible to humans as well.
With this "solution" it looks like the world of art enters the cat-and-mouse game the ad blockers were playing for the last decade or two.
I still feel it is absolutely wrong to roam around the internet and scrape images (without consent) in order to power one’s cash cow AI. I hope more methods to protect artworks (including audio and other formats) become more accessible.
To protect an individual's image property rights from image generating AI's -- wouldn't it be simpler for the IETF (or other standards-producing group) to simply create an AI image exclusion standard , similar to "robots.txt" -- which would tell an AI data-gathering web crawler that a given image or set of images -- was off-limits for use as data? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt https://www.ietf.org/
Robots.txt survived because the use of it to gatekeep valuable goodies was never widespread. Most sites want to be indexed, most URLs excluded by the robots file are not of interest to the search engine anyway, and use of robots to prevent crawling actually interesting pages is marginal.
If there was ever genuine uptake in using robots to gatekeep the really good stuff search engines would've stopped respecting it pretty much immediately - it isn't legally binding after all.
[flagged]
My issue with this line of argument is that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. It’s fine to compare how humans do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and software logic. First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the sa…
No, you don't need to prove any of those things. They're irrelevant. You'd need to prove that the AI is itself morally (or, depending on the nature of the dispute, legally) equivalent to a human and therefore deserving of (or entitled to) the same rights and protections as a human. Since it is pretty indisputably the case that software is not currently legally equivalent to a human, you're stuck with the moral argument that it ought to be, but I think we're very far from a point where that position is warranted or likely to see much support.
To protect an individual's image property rights from image generating AI's -- wouldn't it be simpler for the IETF (or other standards-producing group) to simply create an AI image exclusion standard , similar to "robots.txt" -- which would tell an AI data-gathering web crawler that a given image or set of images -- was off-limits for use as data? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt https://www.ietf.org/
Nevertheless, I hope that at some not-so-far point in the future there will be more legal guidance about this kind of stuff, i.e. it will be made clear that scraping violates copyright. This still won't solve the problem of detectability but it would at least increase the risk of scrapers, should they be caught.