4 ms·

However, AI learning is not the same as a person learning. The same way memorizing a book is not the same way as putting it into computer memory. Nobody would s

However, AI learning is not the same as a person learning. The same way memorizing a book is not the same way as putting it into computer memory. Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No the issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive.

i_like_apis 4y ago
It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning. ML can do either facsimile or imitation far better than a human mind can. You seem to be conflating both things and suggesting that ML only does facsimile, which is where the potential legal problems are.
- b112 4y ago
  It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning No, it is not. Memorization =! understanding. I can teach a parrot to spew the times table, good luck getting it to understand how to apply it. And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You don't need to understand something to go beyond memorization and copies.
  - htfu 4y ago
    You don't need to "understand" art to create it though. Good art, sure, maybe, but not really. Plenty of brilliant musicians who know fuck all about music theory, but they can crank out tunes. Diffusion would appear to me to work in much the same way. It doesn't understand what's good ("works", creates acceptable output) or why, but it knows it when it sees it, and has the tools to refine it.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    > And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos. I am pretty sure that GPT-3 is a lot more capable than a parrot in transpiling a function written in Python to Golang, or writing a summary to a tech-magazine article. Same as StableDiffusion is ALOT more capable than me in drawing, painting and generally making up pretty pictures.
  - i_like_apis 4y ago
    You’re talking about facsimile, which is a product of memorization, which is a type of learning. And it is not the only type of learning AI is capable of. AI, like humans, is capable of both imitation and facsimile. It is far superior at both feats. Your fallacy is that you are noticing AI is superior at facsimile and erroneously assuming it is “not learning”. You are also ignoring the other amazing learning feats of imitation in front of you. Parrots are lovely animals, but it’s unclear what you think you’ve accomplished by bringing them up. The fact that they are capable of more than just memorization does not differentiate them from advanced AI models, which are rapidly gaining all sorts of abilities. Polly the parrot would have a hard time producing a picture of Elmo with a light saber in a Superman costume riding a dragon on the moon in the style of Rembrandt (in under 300ms, at least). I also know a parrot couldn’t write a 500 word story about the image.
usrbinbash 4y ago
> The issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive. But there are no copies. For example, the LAION-2b training data is a total of 240 TB. The pruned SD model based on this dataset, is less than 5GB. The data isn't copied into the models, it is used to teach the models, letting them learn patterns in the dataset.
- freejazz 4y ago
  You are just anthropomorphizing the model by calling it teaching and then implicitly equating that it's the same thing happening in the human mind. That's your burden to establish when you say it's the same.
  - unusualmonkey 4y ago
    Actually, isn't the burden of the plaintiffs to prove their copyrights are being violated? Whether or not it's identical to human brains isn't the matter, they'd need to prove how a small 5GB model trained from a huge dataset infringes their rights specifically.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Well if it's their defense they need to substantiate it. Obviously the plaintiff has a theory, they filed the case.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    I am not anthropomorphizing anything, because this is literally what happens. The model is taught, by having its predictions tested against examples, how images work.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      You are, that's not what teaching means and it's not what learning means.
jfk13 4y ago
> Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No, but what if you then produce "your own" rendition, or "remix", of that book, song or movie and offer it to the public? E.g. you memorize a collection of Taylor Swift's latest songs, and then start performing a medley of her hits in your local clubs, you may well find yourself in trouble.

i_like_apis 4y ago

It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning. ML can do either facsimile or imitation far better than a human mind can. You seem to be conflating both things and suggesting that ML only does facsimile, which is where the potential legal problems are.

b112 4y ago
It is superior, but it is absolutely still learning No, it is not. Memorization =! understanding. I can teach a parrot to spew the times table, good luck getting it to understand how to apply it. And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  You don't need to understand something to go beyond memorization and copies.
- htfu 4y ago
  You don't need to "understand" art to create it though. Good art, sure, maybe, but not really. Plenty of brilliant musicians who know fuck all about music theory, but they can crank out tunes. Diffusion would appear to me to work in much the same way. It doesn't understand what's good ("works", creates acceptable output) or why, but it knows it when it sees it, and has the tools to refine it.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > And a parrot is billions upon billions of times more capable than any current AI algos. I am pretty sure that GPT-3 is a lot more capable than a parrot in transpiling a function written in Python to Golang, or writing a summary to a tech-magazine article. Same as StableDiffusion is ALOT more capable than me in drawing, painting and generally making up pretty pictures.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  You’re talking about facsimile, which is a product of memorization, which is a type of learning. And it is not the only type of learning AI is capable of. AI, like humans, is capable of both imitation and facsimile. It is far superior at both feats. Your fallacy is that you are noticing AI is superior at facsimile and erroneously assuming it is “not learning”. You are also ignoring the other amazing learning feats of imitation in front of you. Parrots are lovely animals, but it’s unclear what you think you’ve accomplished by bringing them up. The fact that they are capable of more than just memorization does not differentiate them from advanced AI models, which are rapidly gaining all sorts of abilities. Polly the parrot would have a hard time producing a picture of Elmo with a light saber in a Superman costume riding a dragon on the moon in the style of Rembrandt (in under 300ms, at least). I also know a parrot couldn’t write a 500 word story about the image.

usrbinbash 4y ago

> The issue is a completely different matter if you made a copy on a harddrive. But there are no copies. For example, the LAION-2b training data is a total of 240 TB. The pruned SD model based on this dataset, is less than 5GB. The data isn't copied into the models, it is used to teach the models, letting them learn patterns in the dataset.

freejazz 4y ago
You are just anthropomorphizing the model by calling it teaching and then implicitly equating that it's the same thing happening in the human mind. That's your burden to establish when you say it's the same.
- unusualmonkey 4y ago
  Actually, isn't the burden of the plaintiffs to prove their copyrights are being violated? Whether or not it's identical to human brains isn't the matter, they'd need to prove how a small 5GB model trained from a huge dataset infringes their rights specifically.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Well if it's their defense they need to substantiate it. Obviously the plaintiff has a theory, they filed the case.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  I am not anthropomorphizing anything, because this is literally what happens. The model is taught, by having its predictions tested against examples, how images work.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    You are, that's not what teaching means and it's not what learning means.

jfk13 4y ago

> Nobody would sue you for copyright infringement if you memorized a book, song or movie in your head. No, but what if you then produce "your own" rendition, or "remix", of that book, song or movie and offer it to the public? E.g. you memorize a collection of Taylor Swift's latest songs, and then start performing a medley of her hits in your local clubs, you may well find yourself in trouble.