4 ms·

If you use MS Paint to copy three photos you found online you are violating their copyright. Your personal insight into how it is done might provide you your ow

If you use MS Paint to copy three photos you found online you are violating their copyright. Your personal insight into how it is done might provide you your own copyright and exactly how you use the other things might make your usage fair use. However the AI process does not create a copyright (there is no human involved) and cannot use the transformative exceptions for fair use due to, again, no human being involved. The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing.

barnabee 4y ago
Do you agree with copyright laws? Are they the best way to reward creation? Do they serve humanity well?
- Guvante 4y ago
  > Do you agree with copyright laws? In their entirety? No of course not. Certainly the duration is ridiculous beyond measure. But the idea of having no protections for your own work seems barbaric. At least for work that requires "work" for lack of a better word. I think the laze faire nature of online memes for instance makes sense in that space. > Are they the best way to reward creation? I think that providing a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it makes sense. > Do they serve humanity well? While I wouldn't attribute societies recent online boon to them. I do think that having protections of this kind are one of the reasons we have seen such a huge investment in the space. Like the current internet or not the hundreds of billions or trillions pumped into it would be harder to stomach if the internet were the wild west some would like it to be.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Honestly, I suspect creating > a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it Is impossible.
    - Guvante 4y ago
      Napster thought so too
corysama 4y ago
> The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing. I see this argument a lot, but it cannot be true. The image database behind Stable Diffusion is 5 billion images resized to 512x512 each and compressed down to a roughly 100,000 gigabytes. But, you can run it on a model file that is as small as 2 gigabytes. The originals are not in there. They have not been compressed to 4 bits per image. I've studied and used AI art generators for a long time now and I can tell you from both a technical and experiential POV, the images they create are not mashups.
- Guvante 4y ago
  None of the evidence you present here supports your conclusion: 20kb per image is like a jpeg worth of data, so certainly not throwing away anything. A tiny model file without logic as to how you got to it isn't interesting. You could just throw away 99.5% (or whatever the ratio is) of the data and call it good. Mishmash data before you do and you might not even have to do that. This style of AI is all about getting right past the human ability to perceive the mishmash and stop there. Given the underlying algorithm is literally about mishmashing I don't know why you are trying to fight that point.
  - corysama 4y ago
    0.5 bytes per image. Not 20,000 bytes per image. Mishmashing implies that small clumps of pixels are in the model file somewhere. That's literally not true and has no relationship to how the algorithm actually works. There's a ton of misinformation about how this works being tossed around. It's causing a lot of anger over ideas that simply false. That's what I'm fighting.
    - Guvante 4y ago
      100,000 / 5 = 20,000 off the numbers given here. Don't quote the 2 GB one that one is disingenuous. That is like copying the dictionary heap sorting by word frequency leaving only the most popular words and saying "see I couldn't have copied the dictionary it is too small to have done that". And no the fact that it has "all" the data isn't material here.
TheBrokenRail 4y ago
> The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing. As another commenter already pointed out, this is literally not possible. The model size for Stable Diffusion isn't nearly big enough to contain all its training data. Understanding the concepts (at least on some abstract level) of the artwork it's trained on is the only possible way a 6 GB[0] model can be based on such a massive data-set. In conclusion, the important thing to remember is that AI does not just copy and paste the originals. It's simply not possible. [0]: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1/tree/main https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1/tree...

barnabee 4y ago

Do you agree with copyright laws? Are they the best way to reward creation? Do they serve humanity well?

Guvante 4y ago
> Do you agree with copyright laws? In their entirety? No of course not. Certainly the duration is ridiculous beyond measure. But the idea of having no protections for your own work seems barbaric. At least for work that requires "work" for lack of a better word. I think the laze faire nature of online memes for instance makes sense in that space. > Are they the best way to reward creation? I think that providing a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it makes sense. > Do they serve humanity well? While I wouldn't attribute societies recent online boon to them. I do think that having protections of this kind are one of the reasons we have seen such a huge investment in the space. Like the current internet or not the hundreds of billions or trillions pumped into it would be harder to stomach if the internet were the wild west some would like it to be.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Honestly, I suspect creating > a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it Is impossible.
  - Guvante 4y ago
    Napster thought so too

corysama 4y ago

> The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing. I see this argument a lot, but it cannot be true. The image database behind Stable Diffusion is 5 billion images resized to 512x512 each and compressed down to a roughly 100,000 gigabytes. But, you can run it on a model file that is as small as 2 gigabytes. The originals are not in there. They have not been compressed to 4 bits per image. I've studied and used AI art generators for a long time now and I can tell you from both a technical and experiential POV, the images they create are not mashups.

Guvante 4y ago
None of the evidence you present here supports your conclusion: 20kb per image is like a jpeg worth of data, so certainly not throwing away anything. A tiny model file without logic as to how you got to it isn't interesting. You could just throw away 99.5% (or whatever the ratio is) of the data and call it good. Mishmash data before you do and you might not even have to do that. This style of AI is all about getting right past the human ability to perceive the mishmash and stop there. Given the underlying algorithm is literally about mishmashing I don't know why you are trying to fight that point.
- corysama 4y ago
  0.5 bytes per image. Not 20,000 bytes per image. Mishmashing implies that small clumps of pixels are in the model file somewhere. That's literally not true and has no relationship to how the algorithm actually works. There's a ton of misinformation about how this works being tossed around. It's causing a lot of anger over ideas that simply false. That's what I'm fighting.
  - Guvante 4y ago
    100,000 / 5 = 20,000 off the numbers given here. Don't quote the 2 GB one that one is disingenuous. That is like copying the dictionary heap sorting by word frequency leaving only the most popular words and saying "see I couldn't have copied the dictionary it is too small to have done that". And no the fact that it has "all" the data isn't material here.

TheBrokenRail 4y ago

> The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing. As another commenter already pointed out, this is literally not possible. The model size for Stable Diffusion isn't nearly big enough to contain all its training data. Understanding the concepts (at least on some abstract level) of the artwork it's trained on is the only possible way a 6 GB[0] model can be based on such a massive data-set. In conclusion, the important thing to remember is that AI does not just copy and paste the originals. It's simply not possible. [0]: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1/tree/main https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1/tree...