Even_Adder @ Even_Adder @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

15

Comments

825

Joined

2 yr. ago

They already stole GPLv2 code for their last data poisoning scheme and remain in violation of that license. They're just grifters.

It's sad some people feel that way. That kind of monopoly on expression and ideas would only serve to increase disparities and divisions, manipulate discourse in subtle ways, and in the end, fundamentally alter how we interact with each other for the worse.

What they want would score a huge inadvertent home run for corporations and swing the doors open for them hindering competition, stifling undesirable speech, and monopolizing spaces like nothing we’ve seen before. There are very good reasons we have the rights we have, and there's nothing good that can be said about anyone trying to make them worse.

Also, rest assured they'd collude with each other and only use their new powers to stamp out the little guy. It'll be like American ISPs busting attempts at municipal internet all over again.

They aren't insufficient, they are working just fine. In the US, fair use balances the interests of copyright holders with the public’s right to access and use information. There are rights people can maintain over their work, and the rights they do not maintain have always been to the benefit of self-expression and discussion. We shouldn't be trying to make that any worse.

You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.

A few quotes:

First, copyright law doesn’t prevent you from making factual observations about a work or copying the facts embodied in a work (this is called the “idea/expression distinction”). Rather, copyright forbids you from copying the work’s creative expression in a way that could substitute for the original, and from making “derivative works” when those works copy too much creative expression from the original.

Second, even if a person makes a copy or a derivative work, the use is not infringing if it is a “fair use.” Whether a use is fair depends on a number of factors, including the purpose of the use, the nature of the original work, how much is used, and potential harm to the market for the original work.

and

Even if a court concludes that a model is a derivative work under copyright law, creating the model is likely a lawful fair use. Fair use protects reverse engineering, indexing for search engines, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. Here, the fact that the model is used to create new works weighs in favor of fair use as does the fact that the model consists of original analysis of the training images in comparison with one another.

I've only heard that running images through a VAE just once seems to break the Nightshade effect, but no one's really published anything yet.

You can finetune models on known bad and incoherent images to help it to output better images if the trained embedding is used in the negative prompt. So there's a chance that making a lot of purposefully bad data could actually make models better by helping the model recognize bad output and avoid it.

He took GPLv3 code, which is a copyleft license that requires you share your source code and license your project under the same terms as the code you used. You also can't distribute your project as a binary-only or proprietary software. When pressed, they only released the code for their front end, remaining in violation of GPLv3.

Then you should amend your comment to:

even though the courts have ruled that anything atributed to an AI outputs as an author is actually in the public domain.

Because as typed, it is wrong.

Reminder that this is made by Ben Zhao, the University of Chicago professor who stole open source code for his last data poisoning scheme.

This ruling is about something else entirely. He tried to argue that the AI itself was the author and that copyright should pass to him as he hired it.

An excerpt from your article:

In 2018, Dr. Thaler sought to register "Recent Entrance" with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the Creativity Machine as its author. He claimed that ownership had been transferred to him under the work-for-hire doctrine, which allows the employer of the creator of a given work or the commissioner of the work to be considered its legal author. However, in 2019, the Copyright Office denied copyright registration for "Recent Entrance," ruling that the work lacked the requisite human authorship. Dr. Thaler requested a review of his application, but the Copyright Office once more refused registration, restating the requirement that a human have created the work.

Copyright is afforded to humans, you can't register an AI as an author, the same as a monkey can't hold copyright.

Reminder that this is made by Ben Zhao, the University of Chicago professor who stole open source code for his last data poisoning scheme.

Works involving the use of AI are copyrightable. Also, the Copyright Office's guidance isn’t law. Their guidance reflects only the office’s interpretation based on its experience, it isn’t binding in the courts or other parties. Guidance from the office is not a substitute for legal advice, and it does not create any rights or obligations for anyone. They are the lowest rung on the ladder for deciding what law means.

This person SUCKS. This has to be the shittiest behavior I've seen on Lemmy.

LWD@lemm.ee is deleting their comments and reposting the same comment to dodge replies. Link to the last thread.

Did you delete your last comment people replied to repost it again without replies? Link to the last thread.

He's not arguing for OpenAI, but for the rest of us. AI is a public technology, but we're on the verge of losing our ability to participate due to things like this and the megacorps' attempts at regulatory capture. Which they might just get. Their campaign against AI is a lot like governments' attempts to destroy encryption. Support open source development, It's our only chance. Their AI will never work for us. John Carmack put it best.

Fuck "Open"AI, fuck Microsoft. Pragmatism or slavery.

It doesn't necessarily have to shift away from diversity biases. I think with care, you can preserve the biases that matter most. That was just their first shot at it, this seems like something you'd get better at over time.

"Indian" is a huge population of very diverse people.

I mean like this. This paper just dropped the other day.

It always gets me that they made Obama white in this.

It seems like there was something wrong with the Google video link I was trying to submit. Changing it let the post go through.