4 ms·

> All code and models used for this website were written and trained as part of my research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The code and mod

by _gabe_ 4y ago

> All code and models used for this website were written and trained as part of my research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The code and models are privately owned and are not to be sold or distributed for unauthorized use. Does anybody else find the irony in this statement absolutely amazing lol.

belter 4y ago
https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/ownership#:~:text=MIT%20owns%20inventions%20made%20or,a%20written%20agreement%20with%20MIT https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/owners.... "...MIT owns inventions made or created by MIT faculty, students, staff, and others participating in sponsored research projects or in MIT programs using significant MIT funds or facilities or those inventions developed pursuant to a written agreement with MIT..." I got RickRolled as soon as arriving to the page. :-)
folkrav 4y ago
I don't get it.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  This is from the MIT license, which is the school he's doing research for (emphasis mine): > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so His TOS is literally the antithesis to the free nature of the MIT license :)
  - 15ai 4y ago
    This is my fault. I do see how that part is worded ambiguously (I'll fix it later), but I have not been with MIT in years. Copy pasting what I've written in another comment: To clarify: I have not been with MIT in years. I was paid the minimum hourly rate (roughly $14 an hour) to work on a related project during my undergraduate years, which eventually evolved into this project years down the road. (In fact, I had to pay for my own compute to get my work started - MIT never offered me any credits.) And to address the philosophy behind the MIT license (also copy pasted from another comment): For the past three years, I have done nothing but work on this project nonstop. I've been working on massive improvements (that some have pointed out in this thread) that I've been stuck on for the past several months, but I'm getting close to finishing that up. I don't feel comfortable publishing or releasing anything until I know for a fact that I can make no further improvements. It's not out of corporate greed or anything like that - I'm just really paranoid about getting out the best work possible.
    - _gabe_ 4y ago
      Gotcha, I have no problem with wanting to keep your personal work closed source. I was just under the impression that this had been created as research funded by MIT. If that's not the case, then sorry for the confusion :)
  - folkrav 4y ago
    Being from MIT and releasing work under MIT license are two very, very different things.
redredrobot 4y ago
The author took someone else's IP as training data, trained a model on someone else's compute, and then gets extremely bent out of shape when others use the model without crediting them?
- deeplearner1 4y ago
  This entire thread is honestly so disturbing, this comment especially. Not only is it rife with misinformation (using copyrighted material for training is totally legal and the whole project is paid out of pocket), but is it really that big of a deal to want credit for the work they’ve done? The developer has had their work stolen by companies, influencers, and grifters, and people here are getting pissy that they can’t wait 10 seconds to wait for a popup. I don’t know why, but I honestly expected more from HN.
  - redredrobot 4y ago
    You're right about the compute part being wrong. I never said it wasn't legal, just that they took someone else's work to train it. I would hope that voice synthesis is illegal without permission from the voice's owner, but I imagine it is untested so far. But it's not just about the popup - it 's more that when your work is fundamentally about using reusing someone else's character, it feels pretty hypocritical to be so focused on making sure you get credit.
    - deeplearner1 4y ago
      Just curious. Do you feel the same way about DALL-E and Imagen?
      - redredrobot 4y ago
        If they are used in a tool that lets you generate someone's likeness as part of user-specified new content, yes. But unlike 15.ai that isn't their core purpose and no such tool exists.
  - bilekas 4y ago
keyle 4y ago
So is this a blanket approval for anyone with AI synthesis of voices, to sample hours of any _copyrighted content_ and come up with a TTS that is copyrighted to the new owner? In other words, if I deep fake someone's photo on someone else's body, I own the rights of that 'model'?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by _gabe_ 4y ago

belter 4y ago

https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/ownership#:~:text=MIT%20owns%20inventions%20made%20or,a%20written%20agreement%20with%20MIT https://tlo.mit.edu/learn-about-intellectual-property/owners.... "...MIT owns inventions made or created by MIT faculty, students, staff, and others participating in sponsored research projects or in MIT programs using significant MIT funds or facilities or those inventions developed pursuant to a written agreement with MIT..." I got RickRolled as soon as arriving to the page. :-)

folkrav 4y ago

I don't get it.

_gabe_ 4y ago
This is from the MIT license, which is the school he's doing research for (emphasis mine): > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so His TOS is literally the antithesis to the free nature of the MIT license :)
- 15ai 4y ago
  This is my fault. I do see how that part is worded ambiguously (I'll fix it later), but I have not been with MIT in years. Copy pasting what I've written in another comment: To clarify: I have not been with MIT in years. I was paid the minimum hourly rate (roughly $14 an hour) to work on a related project during my undergraduate years, which eventually evolved into this project years down the road. (In fact, I had to pay for my own compute to get my work started - MIT never offered me any credits.) And to address the philosophy behind the MIT license (also copy pasted from another comment): For the past three years, I have done nothing but work on this project nonstop. I've been working on massive improvements (that some have pointed out in this thread) that I've been stuck on for the past several months, but I'm getting close to finishing that up. I don't feel comfortable publishing or releasing anything until I know for a fact that I can make no further improvements. It's not out of corporate greed or anything like that - I'm just really paranoid about getting out the best work possible.
  - _gabe_ 4y ago
    Gotcha, I have no problem with wanting to keep your personal work closed source. I was just under the impression that this had been created as research funded by MIT. If that's not the case, then sorry for the confusion :)
- folkrav 4y ago
  Being from MIT and releasing work under MIT license are two very, very different things.

redredrobot 4y ago

The author took someone else's IP as training data, trained a model on someone else's compute, and then gets extremely bent out of shape when others use the model without crediting them?

deeplearner1 4y ago
This entire thread is honestly so disturbing, this comment especially. Not only is it rife with misinformation (using copyrighted material for training is totally legal and the whole project is paid out of pocket), but is it really that big of a deal to want credit for the work they’ve done? The developer has had their work stolen by companies, influencers, and grifters, and people here are getting pissy that they can’t wait 10 seconds to wait for a popup. I don’t know why, but I honestly expected more from HN.
- redredrobot 4y ago
  You're right about the compute part being wrong. I never said it wasn't legal, just that they took someone else's work to train it. I would hope that voice synthesis is illegal without permission from the voice's owner, but I imagine it is untested so far. But it's not just about the popup - it 's more that when your work is fundamentally about using reusing someone else's character, it feels pretty hypocritical to be so focused on making sure you get credit.
  - deeplearner1 4y ago
    Just curious. Do you feel the same way about DALL-E and Imagen?
    - redredrobot 4y ago
      If they are used in a tool that lets you generate someone's likeness as part of user-specified new content, yes. But unlike 15.ai that isn't their core purpose and no such tool exists.
- bilekas 4y ago

keyle 4y ago

So is this a blanket approval for anyone with AI synthesis of voices, to sample hours of any _copyrighted content_ and come up with a TTS that is copyrighted to the new owner? In other words, if I deep fake someone's photo on someone else's body, I own the rights of that 'model'?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]