4 ms·

My problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that humans remembering or using copyrighted things like normal humans do is wrong. E.g. can you rememb

My problem with this line of thinking is that it implies that humans remembering or using copyrighted things like normal humans do is wrong. E.g. can you remember a scene from a recent movie? Copyright infringement. Did you quote a recent book in conversation or a presentation? Absolutely not authorized!

haswell 4y ago
> it implies that humans remembering or using copyrighted things like normal humans do is wrong I don't agree that this is the resulting implication. I'd argue this is only implied if you believe that the software is so similar to humans that making judgements about the software is equivalent to making judgements about humans. Put another way, when a human does those things it is not infringement, because we have already determined that it's not, and the laws are based on humans interacting with the content. A computer doing those things is arguably a new thing entirely, and requires new rules. This does not imply that the old rules would or should stop applying to humans the way they do now.
jeroenhd 4y ago
The difference between humans and computer algorithms is that humans don't run on software. Computers are tools and neural networks only resemble human brains on a surface level. The human learning process is a lot more involved than just interconnections and weights, there is an entire array of biological concepts that neural networks don't even try to simulate in their approach. The comparison between neural networks and the human brain is the same as the comparison between a hard drive and the human brain: the recollection may be automatic and similar, but the concepts behind it and the legal implications aren't.
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  I don't think these algorithms are too much like brains, more so the issue I have is that I view infringement as a "what you do with output" issue, not a "what output can be produced" issue, so demonizing ML models as a whole over people who are irresponsible with them seems sketchy to me. Like blaming human brains for dreaming of Disney and Loony Tunes characters at the same time, instead of blaming someone stupid enough to put the two together outside of parody and attempting to trademark it.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    I have no problem with ML models or AI tech in general. The problem is and will always be the data set that the current models are trained on. You can generate cartoon characters without training on pictures of Mickey Mouse. Just use pictures that don't carry any copyright requirements. The tech and its many possibilities won't change. If the code is any good, the generated model will be just as good as the current one.
danaris 4y ago
ML models are not comparable to human memory. ML programs are not comparable to a human brain, not even by claiming that they use some of the same conceptual structures. Stable Diffusion has no agency, cannot think, and cannot create on its own. A human brain, even if it has been given no art to learn about, can still create. The art influences the form of its creations, true, but in ways that are fundamentally different than ML art generators, if only because of the presence of a conscious human will actively directing it. (And no, a human writing a prompt is not the same thing either.)
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  My issue is not that ML models are comparable, it's that the issue in both cases should be a matter of what is done with output, not the ability to create it. People can doodle Micky on napkins or in notebooks or into their Van Gogh poster all they want. In many ways ML is just making that easier. The problems are all what you do with it, given it being so much easier, not with the capability.
  - danaris 4y ago
    ...Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's not actually how copyright law works. Regardless, people are already, right now, using these ML art generators to cut real human artists out of the loop while producing products for commercial sale.
    - Glyptodon 4y ago
      I mean the systemic effects are going to be rough. But however copyright law works, if little Timmy draws a Pokemon it's pretty normal and nobody gets fined or goes to jail. The systemic effects from this are going to be because you can get good enough "original" output without needing an actual artist, not because the good enough output will inherently violate copyright.
      - danaris 4y ago
        Part of the problem right now is not just people using generators to produce "good enough" art, but using them to produce art in the style of specific, living, active artists, who rely on being able to sell their art for their livelihoods. The only reason it is able to produce art in their style reliably is because it has been trained on their work without their (or, in fact, anyone's) permission.
snickerbockers 4y ago
not sure if youre aware, but people are actually not allowed to misrepresent other peoples creations as their own.
- Glyptodon 4y ago
  Sure, but you're getting in trouble for the act of misrepresenting, not because you drew a doodle for your friend or had a dream with Twilight vampires in Harry Potter or something. More so than your brain's ability to output ideas it's what you do with that output that matters. Whereas with these models people are acting like it's having the capability that's the bad part, not the usage.

haswell 4y ago

> it implies that humans remembering or using copyrighted things like normal humans do is wrong I don't agree that this is the resulting implication. I'd argue this is only implied if you believe that the software is so similar to humans that making judgements about the software is equivalent to making judgements about humans. Put another way, when a human does those things it is not infringement, because we have already determined that it's not, and the laws are based on humans interacting with the content. A computer doing those things is arguably a new thing entirely, and requires new rules. This does not imply that the old rules would or should stop applying to humans the way they do now.

jeroenhd 4y ago

The difference between humans and computer algorithms is that humans don't run on software. Computers are tools and neural networks only resemble human brains on a surface level. The human learning process is a lot more involved than just interconnections and weights, there is an entire array of biological concepts that neural networks don't even try to simulate in their approach. The comparison between neural networks and the human brain is the same as the comparison between a hard drive and the human brain: the recollection may be automatic and similar, but the concepts behind it and the legal implications aren't.

Glyptodon 4y ago
I don't think these algorithms are too much like brains, more so the issue I have is that I view infringement as a "what you do with output" issue, not a "what output can be produced" issue, so demonizing ML models as a whole over people who are irresponsible with them seems sketchy to me. Like blaming human brains for dreaming of Disney and Loony Tunes characters at the same time, instead of blaming someone stupid enough to put the two together outside of parody and attempting to trademark it.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  I have no problem with ML models or AI tech in general. The problem is and will always be the data set that the current models are trained on. You can generate cartoon characters without training on pictures of Mickey Mouse. Just use pictures that don't carry any copyright requirements. The tech and its many possibilities won't change. If the code is any good, the generated model will be just as good as the current one.

danaris 4y ago

ML models are not comparable to human memory. ML programs are not comparable to a human brain, not even by claiming that they use some of the same conceptual structures. Stable Diffusion has no agency, cannot think, and cannot create on its own. A human brain, even if it has been given no art to learn about, can still create. The art influences the form of its creations, true, but in ways that are fundamentally different than ML art generators, if only because of the presence of a conscious human will actively directing it. (And no, a human writing a prompt is not the same thing either.)

Glyptodon 4y ago
My issue is not that ML models are comparable, it's that the issue in both cases should be a matter of what is done with output, not the ability to create it. People can doodle Micky on napkins or in notebooks or into their Van Gogh poster all they want. In many ways ML is just making that easier. The problems are all what you do with it, given it being so much easier, not with the capability.
- danaris 4y ago
  ...Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's not actually how copyright law works. Regardless, people are already, right now, using these ML art generators to cut real human artists out of the loop while producing products for commercial sale.
  - Glyptodon 4y ago
    I mean the systemic effects are going to be rough. But however copyright law works, if little Timmy draws a Pokemon it's pretty normal and nobody gets fined or goes to jail. The systemic effects from this are going to be because you can get good enough "original" output without needing an actual artist, not because the good enough output will inherently violate copyright.
    - danaris 4y ago
      Part of the problem right now is not just people using generators to produce "good enough" art, but using them to produce art in the style of specific, living, active artists, who rely on being able to sell their art for their livelihoods. The only reason it is able to produce art in their style reliably is because it has been trained on their work without their (or, in fact, anyone's) permission.

snickerbockers 4y ago

not sure if youre aware, but people are actually not allowed to misrepresent other peoples creations as their own.

Glyptodon 4y ago
Sure, but you're getting in trouble for the act of misrepresenting, not because you drew a doodle for your friend or had a dream with Twilight vampires in Harry Potter or something. More so than your brain's ability to output ideas it's what you do with that output that matters. Whereas with these models people are acting like it's having the capability that's the bad part, not the usage.