Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BI
Posts
0
Comments
464
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • This could be fine if it didn't immediately send all of your data to the internet.

    But as is, fuck that and fuck you Microsoft.

    Windows told me I don't have permission to do something. On my computer. As an administrator. Using the command line.

    Fuck Windows, fuck Microsoft and their controlling asses, and fuck co-pilot and Open AI for contributing to artificial intelligence not only being closed source and proprietary, but encouraging the United States government to make it literally illegal to do it on the open source field as well.

  • People cheer for nazis, too. Are you going to make a generic claim that "It's mind-blowing that people defend these monsters" as well?

    Yes. If I ever see a significant number of people defending the Nazis in spaces I speak in I will say exactly that.

  • Because I've seen these things work and I know for damn sure that if those people have a chance to vote for me they wouldn't do it in a million years.

    I've learned better than the trust narratives of how you should be a good person.

    All I will get is yet more rounds of talk about how everyone else needs help while all the issues I actually care about are left to wither and die.

    So fuck them, I'm voting based on the issues that I feel are important and impact my life.

  • It doesn't really matter whether the original data is present in the model

    Yeah it does. One of the arguments people make is that AI models are just a form of compression, and as a result distributing the model is akin to distributing all the component parts. This fact invalidates that argument.

    This isn't a slam dunk argument that there's nothing wrong with what an AI does even if we grant it is transformative. It may also simply be proving that the copyright law we have fails to protect artists in the new era of AI.

    If we change the law to make it illegal it's illegal.

  • Over fitting is an issue for the images that were overfit. But note in that article that those images mostly appeared many times in the data set.

    People who own the rights to one of those images have a valid argument. Everyone else doesn't.

  • It is illegal to use copyrighted material period outside of fair use, and this is most certainly not.

    Yeah it is. Even assuming fair use applied, fair use is largely a question of how much a work is transformed and (a billion images) - AI model is just about the most transformative use case out there.

    And this assumes this matters when they're literally not copying the original work (barring over fitting). It's a public internet download. The "copy" is made by Facebook or whoever you uploaded the image to.

    The model doesn't contain the original artwork or parts of it. Stable diffusion literally has one byte per image of training data.

  • They use a ton of data as reference points. It’s literally in the name of the technology.

    Reference is the wrong word.

    They learn the patterns that exist in data and are able to predict future patterns.

    They don't actually reference the source material during generation (barring over itting which can happen and is roughly akin to a human memorizing something and reproducing it).