3 ms·
> The systemic fogginess of Facebook’s data storage made answering even the most basic question futile. At another point, the special master asked how one could
by pavlov 4y ago
> The systemic fogginess of Facebook’s data storage made answering even the most basic question futile. At another point, the special master asked how one could find out which systems actually contain user data that was created through machine inference.
“I don’t know,” answered Zarashaw. “It’s a rather difficult conundrum.”
This is not a basic question because of how ML works. Can we say a system contains my data if my data was used as a training input to a neural network at some point in the past?
In that case, can I sue anyone using Stable Diffusion for stealing my data because the billions of images in its training set included something I created?
- dannyw 4y ago> In that case, can I sue anyone using Stable Diffusion for stealing my data because the billions of images in its training set included something I created? No, because of the landmark Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case which found that ML training can be considered fair use in some circumstances.
- pavlov 4y agoSo why do we expect Meta to internally track this kind of data usage? Seems like it’s both fair use and covered by the terms of service that FB users have agreed to.
- kmeisthax 4y agoCopyright and privacy law are two different animals. Copyright law covers things that are expected to be published - i.e. creative works. We decide that authors get to control how and when they are published. Privacy law is different: the subject is information that is held in confidence and should not be published under any circumstance. Fair use would circumvent the "copyright my nudes so I can DMCA them off Facebook" kind of action, but not, say, the GDPR. GDPR does not care about fair use, and its skeptical of TOS agreements.