4 ms·

To me this is kind of like being shocked that people who've seen the Starry Night can remember what it looks like.

tomasreimers 4y ago
I think until now this has been a complaint about generative AI applications that has been handwaved away ("what if co-pilot generates GPL code?" -> "Well it will generate a blend of many pieces of code") If there is now evidence that it does memorize and emit training data, that argument had new life. That said, I imagine it's easy enough to add a post-process step to ensure your result isn't a member of the training set.
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  I don't know. It's not like remembering GPL'd code you've read makes your brain subject to GPL or code you write that uses similar structure or variable names for a loop or something GPL.
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
And the reaction among many, here, seems to be shock or disbelief that someone who's memorized Starry Night and then proceeded to reproduced the work would run afoul of copyright law.
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing if my memory of Deviant Art 20 years ago is accurate. And most every comic con I've attended is overrun with examples of the same kind of thing even now. Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. That said, with humans it's not like anyone tries to prevent us from having the capability, it's just that usually people know better. Otherwise going to art galleries would be problematic.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing Which is not the same as memorizing and reproducing a work, which is equivalent to, say, memorizing and covering/performing a song, something which is well understood to be a violation of copyright law. > Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Which violates copyright. > Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. Also violates copyright, but is probably covered by a fair use defense due to the scholarship aspect of the work.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Run afoul of copyright law how is the question. My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. We tend to talk about copyright violation in light of distribution. Is the file transfer from the SD server to your browser an act of distribution? Who knows what the law thinks at this point.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. > Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. It absolutely can be. There's numerous cases of courts finding cases of copyright violation due to accidental copying, particularly in the music industry. I know, that might sound unintuitive, but the law is the law: https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innoce... > But since 1931, a defendant’s mental state has clearly not been relevant under U.S. copyright law to the question of liability for direct copyright infringement. As the Supreme Court stated that year, “[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.” So innocent infringers are just as liable as those who infringe knowingly or recklessly. As an aside, logo design, which you mentioned, actually comes with a whole other set of considerations, as you're less concerned about copyright and more about trademark, which is a whole different branch of IP law.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
This kind of anthropomorphism isn’t generally accurate in the ML world. We make analogies on how it’s like people, then later work shows that actually no it just finds some weird shortcut. Over and over again.
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  I don't think trying to keep "what you do with output" a distinct thing from "has the ability to produce output," "produced output," or "requested output" categorically is really anthropomorphism.
sct202 4y ago
People can remember Starry Night, but if you asked people to reproduce it from memory the reproductions would be all over the place. People are generally not capable of creating realistic copies of anything straight from memory. Realistic paintings from the the Renaissance could only be done on still life, but photo realistic paintings were only possible after color photography was widespread and artists could use full scale photographs to base their paintings off of.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > People are generally not capable of creating realistic copies of anything straight from memory The average person can't even draw a bicycle from memory[0]. Gp is overestimating human capacity for reproduction. However, whatever humans are capable of or not is a red herring. If humans memorize and reproduce a copyrighted work - it counts as a performance or copy. Someone typing Dan Browns novel on their blog from photographic memory does not get a pass, and noether should the AI models. 0. If you have 10 seconds, sketch a bicycle before opening the link https://twistedsifter.com/2016/04/artist-asks-people-to-draw-bicycle-from-memory-and-renders-results/ https://twistedsifter.com/2016/04/artist-asks-people-to-draw...
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    That's because most people can't draw. A better example would be: could the average person accurately imagine a bicycle? Can their brain generate the correct image, even if they lack the skills to draw it?
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      The link I provided shows that people can't visualize a bicycle accurately; people were asked to doodle what they imagined a bicycle is laid out, and most of the drawings were structurally unsound, to say the least
      - Glyptodon 4y ago
        IMO if you asked someone to think of a picture of a bicycle and had a way to turn their mental image into a jpg, you'd get 1000x better output than asking people to try and doodle one because drawing is much more difficult than visualizing, and most people know they have trouble drawing so kind of goof their doodles as almost an unconscious self-deprecation to express their self-consciousness about it.

I think until now this has been a complaint about generative AI applications that has been handwaved away ("what if co-pilot generates GPL code?" -> "Well it will generate a blend of many pieces of code") If there is now evidence that it does memorize and emit training data, that argument had new life. That said, I imagine it's easy enough to add a post-process step to ensure your result isn't a member of the training set.

Glyptodon 4y ago
I don't know. It's not like remembering GPL'd code you've read makes your brain subject to GPL or code you write that uses similar structure or variable names for a loop or something GPL.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

And the reaction among many, here, seems to be shock or disbelief that someone who's memorized Starry Night and then proceeded to reproduced the work would run afoul of copyright law.

Glyptodon 4y ago
I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing if my memory of Deviant Art 20 years ago is accurate. And most every comic con I've attended is overrun with examples of the same kind of thing even now. Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. That said, with humans it's not like anyone tries to prevent us from having the capability, it's just that usually people know better. Otherwise going to art galleries would be problematic.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing Which is not the same as memorizing and reproducing a work, which is equivalent to, say, memorizing and covering/performing a song, something which is well understood to be a violation of copyright law. > Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Which violates copyright. > Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. Also violates copyright, but is probably covered by a fair use defense due to the scholarship aspect of the work.
pixl97 4y ago
Run afoul of copyright law how is the question. My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. We tend to talk about copyright violation in light of distribution. Is the file transfer from the SD server to your browser an act of distribution? Who knows what the law thinks at this point.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. > Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. It absolutely can be. There's numerous cases of courts finding cases of copyright violation due to accidental copying, particularly in the music industry. I know, that might sound unintuitive, but the law is the law: https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innoce... > But since 1931, a defendant’s mental state has clearly not been relevant under U.S. copyright law to the question of liability for direct copyright infringement. As the Supreme Court stated that year, “[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.” So innocent infringers are just as liable as those who infringe knowingly or recklessly. As an aside, logo design, which you mentioned, actually comes with a whole other set of considerations, as you're less concerned about copyright and more about trademark, which is a whole different branch of IP law.

6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago

This kind of anthropomorphism isn’t generally accurate in the ML world. We make analogies on how it’s like people, then later work shows that actually no it just finds some weird shortcut. Over and over again.

Glyptodon 4y ago
I don't think trying to keep "what you do with output" a distinct thing from "has the ability to produce output," "produced output," or "requested output" categorically is really anthropomorphism.

sct202 4y ago

People can remember Starry Night, but if you asked people to reproduce it from memory the reproductions would be all over the place. People are generally not capable of creating realistic copies of anything straight from memory. Realistic paintings from the the Renaissance could only be done on still life, but photo realistic paintings were only possible after color photography was widespread and artists could use full scale photographs to base their paintings off of.

sangnoir 4y ago
> People are generally not capable of creating realistic copies of anything straight from memory The average person can't even draw a bicycle from memory[0]. Gp is overestimating human capacity for reproduction. However, whatever humans are capable of or not is a red herring. If humans memorize and reproduce a copyrighted work - it counts as a performance or copy. Someone typing Dan Browns novel on their blog from photographic memory does not get a pass, and noether should the AI models. 0. If you have 10 seconds, sketch a bicycle before opening the link https://twistedsifter.com/2016/04/artist-asks-people-to-draw-bicycle-from-memory-and-renders-results/ https://twistedsifter.com/2016/04/artist-asks-people-to-draw...
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  That's because most people can't draw. A better example would be: could the average person accurately imagine a bicycle? Can their brain generate the correct image, even if they lack the skills to draw it?
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    The link I provided shows that people can't visualize a bicycle accurately; people were asked to doodle what they imagined a bicycle is laid out, and most of the drawings were structurally unsound, to say the least
    - Glyptodon 4y ago
      IMO if you asked someone to think of a picture of a bicycle and had a way to turn their mental image into a jpg, you'd get 1000x better output than asking people to try and doodle one because drawing is much more difficult than visualizing, and most people know they have trouble drawing so kind of goof their doodles as almost an unconscious self-deprecation to express their self-consciousness about it.