[HN Gopher] AI Data Laundering
___________________________________________________________________
AI Data Laundering
Author : marceloabsousa
Score : 44 points
Date : 2022-10-17 21:26 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (waxy.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (waxy.org)
| dkural wrote:
| This reminds me of the Jedi Mind trick of Uber of waving a
| smartphone to argue that labor & other laws all of a sudden don't
| apply to them, to the detriment of the public that'll now
| shoulder the costs.
| moyix wrote:
| 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 "project provides a public service without
| violating intellectual property law." The U.S. Supreme Court
| subsequently denied a petition to hear the case.
|
| [...]
|
| > The court's summary of its opinion is:
|
| [...]
|
| > Google's unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works,
| creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from
| those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the
| copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is
| limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market
| substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. _Google's
| commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of
| fair use._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
|
| This doesn't touch on the ethics of course - at minimum I think
| allowing people to exclude themselves or their work from a
| dataset is necessary.
| echelon wrote:
| 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
| willing to look past the IP laws will jump ahead. And if
| Stability locks away their secret sauce, some new party will
| come and give away the keys to the kingdom yet again.
|
| You can't block the signal. Except, of course, by legislating
| against it in some Luddite hope we can prevent the future from
| happening.
|
| Instead of worrying careers will end, we should look at this as
| being the end of specialization. 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.
|
| Humans aren't the end or the peak of evolution. We should be
| excited to watch this unfold.
|
| [1] Maybe Disney would like you to pay more for a premium
| learning plan for your child, but thankfully that's not (yet)
| possible.
| greysphere wrote:
| Most machine learning is assigning weights in a chain of
| matrix multiplications and normalization functions.
|
| There is no known model of toddlers' brains, let alone one
| based on matrix multiplication and normalization. Developing
| such a model would be a noteworthy achievement.
|
| Therefore these are different.
| nightski wrote:
| 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.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| > Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler
| ravenous for new information.
|
| If a person published a work that clearly plagiarized or
| violated a patent, that person would be open to legal action.
|
| I'm all for systemic change, but uses like this may end up
| having a chilling effect on human-created work.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| > _the revelations do not provide a significant market
| substitute for the protected aspects of the originals_
|
| It does seem like generative AI systems provide a significant
| market substitute, so this ruling probably wouldn't apply, in
| court.
|
| edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33194623 for
| some initial thoughts on how this problem (and others) could be
| rectified.
|
| For example, with a database of protected works and self-
| censorship algorithms for generative AI systems,
| conscientiously objecting creatives could have a mechanism for
| excluding their works.
| tpmoney wrote:
| A substitute for what though? Copyright law is only concerned
| with substituting the work under copyright. That is to say,
| the consideration is whether the infringing aspects of the
| secondary work would alter the demand and market for the work
| being infringed.
|
| In all the talk about AI data laundering there really hasn't
| been any indication that the AI generated item substitutes
| for the item it's alleged to infringe on. Substituting for a
| whole profession and its practitioners doesn't enter into the
| concerns of copyright law. There might be some argument that
| it should (to "promote the progress of science and useful
| arts" as it were), but copyright law to my knowledge hasn't
| been used to prevent new tech from putting professionals as a
| whole out of business.
| 9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote:
| Stock photography seems to be the obvious instance - why
| bother paying for the labor to make a stock photo, when you
| can have a generative AI system create the photo for you?
|
| And furthermore, has anyone demonstrated that it is or is
| not possible to fully, or substantially, recreate any given
| existing work using the right input prompts?
|
| I'm interested to know more of the legal details, but my
| understanding of copyright law is such that it preserves
| the value of intellectual labor.
| authpor wrote:
| > _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?
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| 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 its pitfalls, expressing
| concern, emphasis on professions, emphasis on automation,
| written by Stephen King, creative writing, award winning,
| trending on reddit, trending on hacker news, written by Greg
| Rutkowski, written by Zola, written by Voltaire, written by
| authpor, written by moyix.
|
| (Just kidding, it wasn't AI generated but you see my point.)
| mkaic wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This has been the case ever since people started putting
| their art on the Internet publicly. The only difference is
| that now it's algorithms creating the derivatives, not
| people.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| This is not remotely the same, scale and barrier to entry
| matter. With stable diffusion I can pick any artist right
| now and create over 1000 derivative works by tomorrow
| morning in his style to the same degree of expertise with
| no training involved and no work required.
| authpor wrote:
| 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.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| 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.
|
| Not only that but being able to dedicate 8 to 10 hours a
| day to your craft for 40 years bring it to a level that
| you can't reach with casual practice.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| > It's currently unclear if training deep learning models on
| copyrighted material is a form of infringement
|
| What? It's clearly a derived work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-17 23:00 UTC)