3 ms·

How are you planning on proving a particular licensed work was used in a sufficiently large model? One of the commonly mentioned issues with current ML is the i

How are you planning on proving a particular licensed work was used in a sufficiently large model? One of the commonly mentioned issues with current ML is the inability to reverse the output to figure out 'how it got there'.

lelanthran 4y ago
> How are you planning on proving a particular licensed work was used in a sufficiently large model? One of the commonly mentioned issues with current ML is the inability to reverse the output to figure out 'how it got there'. That's a different problem. Let's not get into the argument of "Just because the victim cannot prove something, we should remove the relevant laws." The current laws are sufficient; all that it takes is for licenses to have a non-AI-training clause. Lets solve the problem of "how do you prove" when we get to it[1]. [1] Right now, due to the systems already trained being given every single image on the net as training data according to the owner of those systems, in a civil suit the burden will be on them to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, a particular image was not used.
- kragen 4y ago
  laws that cannot be enforced in practice are bad laws; they work out to be a 007-style license to kill, but for businesses rather than people granting many such licenses is a recipe for social collapse
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > laws that cannot be enforced in practice are bad laws; Who said they couldn't be enforced? The argument from the pro-AI team is that we shouldn't have those laws in the first place. I'm saying, let's keep the laws we already have because they already work quite nicely if the content creators don't want their work included in any training data set. Rushing to make new laws because "Muh AI" is silly.
    - kragen 4y ago
      probably before rushing to categorize people into teams and ridicule those you think are on a different team from you, it would serve you well to understand the basic principles of the field you are commenting on so that you are in a position to assess the factual claims people are advancing if you are failing to understand the factual claims, you have no hope of making sense of the normative claims for which you have such thirst
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        I'm not on a team, but the notion from the pro AI people that licensors cannot add restrictions on their material is, frankly, childish in its logic. Almost all big companies routinely have licenses which heavily restrict how their software may be used, and the licenses have held up time and time again in various jurisdictions around the world. The only argument you appear to be presenting is "well and don't like it that way". Tough. It's already that way and has been so for dozens of decades .

lelanthran 4y ago

> How are you planning on proving a particular licensed work was used in a sufficiently large model? One of the commonly mentioned issues with current ML is the inability to reverse the output to figure out 'how it got there'. That's a different problem. Let's not get into the argument of "Just because the victim cannot prove something, we should remove the relevant laws." The current laws are sufficient; all that it takes is for licenses to have a non-AI-training clause. Lets solve the problem of "how do you prove" when we get to it[1]. [1] Right now, due to the systems already trained being given every single image on the net as training data according to the owner of those systems, in a civil suit the burden will be on them to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, a particular image was not used.

kragen 4y ago
laws that cannot be enforced in practice are bad laws; they work out to be a 007-style license to kill, but for businesses rather than people granting many such licenses is a recipe for social collapse
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > laws that cannot be enforced in practice are bad laws; Who said they couldn't be enforced? The argument from the pro-AI team is that we shouldn't have those laws in the first place. I'm saying, let's keep the laws we already have because they already work quite nicely if the content creators don't want their work included in any training data set. Rushing to make new laws because "Muh AI" is silly.
  - kragen 4y ago
    probably before rushing to categorize people into teams and ridicule those you think are on a different team from you, it would serve you well to understand the basic principles of the field you are commenting on so that you are in a position to assess the factual claims people are advancing if you are failing to understand the factual claims, you have no hope of making sense of the normative claims for which you have such thirst
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      I'm not on a team, but the notion from the pro AI people that licensors cannot add restrictions on their material is, frankly, childish in its logic. Almost all big companies routinely have licenses which heavily restrict how their software may be used, and the licenses have held up time and time again in various jurisdictions around the world. The only argument you appear to be presenting is "well and don't like it that way". Tough. It's already that way and has been so for dozens of decades .