4 ms·

This is only surprising if you're not familiar with product launches that result from R&D. In this case DALL-E 2 is the consumer-facing name, unCLIP is the name

by axg11 5y ago

This is only surprising if you're not familiar with product launches that result from R&D. In this case DALL-E 2 is the consumer-facing name, unCLIP is the name used during research and in this case for publication. OpenAI may also have a further internal codename that they used for the project. Currently DALL-E 2 access is limited but there are lots of reasons to believe that OpenAI will try to productize Dall-E 2 as an API. If you're selling a product, you need a product name.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I honestly hope they don’t productize it until they can build a dataset of images that have been explicitly licensed for remixes without attribution. Having proven that the system works, they could now justify the effort to build a very large public dataset of CC0 images. For example they could encourage Twitter to add image licensing options and use the alt text of images to form the image description. They could then encourage twitter to encourage the use of licensing and alt text, and foster a culture of open sharing. There are already 500 million images in Creative Commons, hopefully many with an appropriate license for reuse without attribution. Otherwise what I am hearing is that artists online are upset their work has been incorporated in to DALL-E without their consent. A system that rips off artists and then puts them out of work would make OpenAI and the AI community look bad. Instead we could move forward with better licensing and alt text features for major platforms and draw in an open community rather than taking what has not been licensed for this kind of use.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  Same with all these big models. GPT-3 and codex benefit from all the text and code that has been made publicly visible without giving back. At least e.g. imagenet classifiers had to take the effort to label the images they scraped. IP laws need to catch up, so that ML models that use unlicensed public content have to give back in some way.
- axg11 4y ago
  I disagree. If it’s on the web it should be fair game. These models are not directly cutting and pasting, it’s my opinion that they’re learning some higher level features and attributes. Admittedly, not everyone shares that opinion. Humans don’t exclusively learn from licensed content and I don’t see why our learning algorithms should be restricted to that.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    It seems to me there is a gap in robot rights vs human rights: Google has scanned in much of the world's library collections - the search agent is allowed to look at all of it, but I am only allowed to see samples. How is it Google is allowed to keep a copy on hand, but is not allowed to show me? And now OpenAI has done the work of curating hundreds of gigabytes of publically viewable images (copied without regard for copyright, since of course that's how the internet works, but they have made a copy of each of these images for their training set) -- it seems strange to me that if I want to ask DALL-E, "what image in your training set is the nearest match to this output", copyright law prevents it from showing me (perhaps it could at least return the URL it recorded, and I can hope that Archive.org has taken on the risk of violating copyright on my behalf) In any case, intellectual property laws have created a world where the robots are compelled to withhold information from us mere mortals, with the excuse that they can't make one more copy for us.
    - briHass 4y ago
      Is it really that surprising, though? The training data is more like 'inspriation' for human artists. Certainly, there are cases in music where sampling or melodies are a little too close to the original and spark lawsuits, but largely, very similar derivative works abound. Nothing about creating a derivative work, intentional or otherwise, would allow you to use the original in a way copyright protects. Even Fair Use, which is fairly permissive, doesn't allow for blatant disregard of the original copyright.
    - djmips 4y ago
      That's an interesting thought experiment. Every human btain contains illegal copies of music and images. If you hum or sing or even think about an IP, in the future you will have to pay a license fee to a corporation.

by axg11 5y ago

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

I honestly hope they don’t productize it until they can build a dataset of images that have been explicitly licensed for remixes without attribution. Having proven that the system works, they could now justify the effort to build a very large public dataset of CC0 images. For example they could encourage Twitter to add image licensing options and use the alt text of images to form the image description. They could then encourage twitter to encourage the use of licensing and alt text, and foster a culture of open sharing. There are already 500 million images in Creative Commons, hopefully many with an appropriate license for reuse without attribution. Otherwise what I am hearing is that artists online are upset their work has been incorporated in to DALL-E without their consent. A system that rips off artists and then puts them out of work would make OpenAI and the AI community look bad. Instead we could move forward with better licensing and alt text features for major platforms and draw in an open community rather than taking what has not been licensed for this kind of use.

6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
Same with all these big models. GPT-3 and codex benefit from all the text and code that has been made publicly visible without giving back. At least e.g. imagenet classifiers had to take the effort to label the images they scraped. IP laws need to catch up, so that ML models that use unlicensed public content have to give back in some way.
axg11 4y ago
I disagree. If it’s on the web it should be fair game. These models are not directly cutting and pasting, it’s my opinion that they’re learning some higher level features and attributes. Admittedly, not everyone shares that opinion. Humans don’t exclusively learn from licensed content and I don’t see why our learning algorithms should be restricted to that.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  It seems to me there is a gap in robot rights vs human rights: Google has scanned in much of the world's library collections - the search agent is allowed to look at all of it, but I am only allowed to see samples. How is it Google is allowed to keep a copy on hand, but is not allowed to show me? And now OpenAI has done the work of curating hundreds of gigabytes of publically viewable images (copied without regard for copyright, since of course that's how the internet works, but they have made a copy of each of these images for their training set) -- it seems strange to me that if I want to ask DALL-E, "what image in your training set is the nearest match to this output", copyright law prevents it from showing me (perhaps it could at least return the URL it recorded, and I can hope that Archive.org has taken on the risk of violating copyright on my behalf) In any case, intellectual property laws have created a world where the robots are compelled to withhold information from us mere mortals, with the excuse that they can't make one more copy for us.
  - briHass 4y ago
    Is it really that surprising, though? The training data is more like 'inspriation' for human artists. Certainly, there are cases in music where sampling or melodies are a little too close to the original and spark lawsuits, but largely, very similar derivative works abound. Nothing about creating a derivative work, intentional or otherwise, would allow you to use the original in a way copyright protects. Even Fair Use, which is fairly permissive, doesn't allow for blatant disregard of the original copyright.
  - djmips 4y ago
    That's an interesting thought experiment. Every human btain contains illegal copies of music and images. If you hum or sing or even think about an IP, in the future you will have to pay a license fee to a corporation.