3 ms·

"business model" feels like a very narrow lens to view this through. This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. We are

by tveita 4y ago

"business model" feels like a very narrow lens to view this through. This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. We are potentially creating an all-seeing instant plagiarism machine that saps away not just monetary compensation but even credit and recognition. Spend 2 years writing your novel? You'll barely sell a single copy, but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it. Spend 5 months in the jungle with wild animals to snap that perfect picture? The magazine covers will be Dalle 5 rendering "nature photograph of orangutan cradling its new born baby in the style of X", your royalties won't cover buying a single lens.

chii 4y ago
> This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers? > but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it. except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. If you cannot tell if GPTx is sourcing from your works, even if it is, then there's no case to stand on. The AI wrote a better novel than the human. > Spend 5 months in the jungle and there's a lot of people doing "organic", "handcrafted" produce/foods. They tend to be very expensive compared to mass produced factory foods, and the market for it is relatively small. Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue.
- romwell 4y ago
  >except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. Respectfully, no. The top comment in this thread is saurik asking Stable Diffisuion to generate "an avatar of saurik" and getting a veritable likeness of themselves back. It would be laughable to think that this is feasible without the model having labeled photos of saurik, which are all posted by (go figure) saurik. The AI also generated a "better" photo than the one saurik posted. The AI saurik has more hair. That doesn't change the fact that without the source material, this output would not exist. Nor that it would be really hard for saurik to "take action" on that. ---- In the end, the experiment to do would be very simple. Exclude certain data from the training set, retrain the model, give it the same prompt, and see whether the output changes significantly. If it does, then that data was indispensable for generating the output for that prompt. Something tells me we won't see such experiments done by OpeanAI any time soon.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    A paraphrased novel is clearly a copyright violation under existing laws. If you use GPT to produce one, then you will be sued. This does not imply that the underlying model is a copyright violation. There is no case law on the copyright status of models but it is generally believed that training a model is fair use. In the human analogy: it is legal to read Harry Potter and to learn Harry Potter from memory such that a copy of it is stored within your head. But if you reproduce and publish or perform substantial parts of Harry Potter from memory you are violating copyright (subject to the various exceptions to copyright: quotation, parody, etc).
  - l33tman 4y ago
    "If it does, then that data was indispensable for generating the output for that prompt." It gets murkier than this, by far. The diffusion models are not just trained on images, but on text. It varies by implementation but Stable Diffusion for example used a pre-trained CLIP transformer network from OpenAI (and subsequently OpenCLIP). CLIP can have internal associations between words that in turn steer the diffusion image generation. To given a simple example of how this could work (I'm not saying this particular example does work though): the model in total could understand that a "swedish flag" consists of a "yellow cross on a blue background", and it could have yellow crosses in its image training set, but no images of Swedish flags, and it would still understand how to draw a "Swedish flag" based on the language semantics. Just as a human, actually. So, this won't work. A style can be inferred and described and it doesn't necessarily need to be in the image training set at all.
    - romwell 4y ago
      Thanks for pointing this out! I guess the test I described is the simplest case of detecting appropriation by AI. Still, I think it would be a good start.
- tveita 4y ago
  > so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers? Yes, obviously. We haven't found 40,000 year old telegraph stations in caves. No one thinks weaving is an intrinsic part of being human. The cat is out of the bag, but we should think very carefully about what we're leaving behind before we embrace an artless society. > Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue. This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper? Just write "crying woman bleeds from head in front of ruined building, warzone (pulitzer) [trending on Flickr]" in the little text box, click generate, ship it, and go for coffee.
  - CapsAdmin 4y ago
    > This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper? Who cares about playing against a chess player when you can just play against an AI opponent for free on your computer? Who cares about going to a fancy bar when you can just drink at home for less? Who cares about buying expensive concert tickets when you can just watch a recorded version for free on the internet later? Who cares about buying a luxury car when a basic model gets you from A to B just as well? . People like you and many many others who think these questions are dumb will be the primary market for art.

by tveita 4y ago

chii 4y ago

> This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers? > but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it. except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. If you cannot tell if GPTx is sourcing from your works, even if it is, then there's no case to stand on. The AI wrote a better novel than the human. > Spend 5 months in the jungle and there's a lot of people doing "organic", "handcrafted" produce/foods. They tend to be very expensive compared to mass produced factory foods, and the market for it is relatively small. Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue.

romwell 4y ago
>except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. Respectfully, no. The top comment in this thread is saurik asking Stable Diffisuion to generate "an avatar of saurik" and getting a veritable likeness of themselves back. It would be laughable to think that this is feasible without the model having labeled photos of saurik, which are all posted by (go figure) saurik. The AI also generated a "better" photo than the one saurik posted. The AI saurik has more hair. That doesn't change the fact that without the source material, this output would not exist. Nor that it would be really hard for saurik to "take action" on that. ---- In the end, the experiment to do would be very simple. Exclude certain data from the training set, retrain the model, give it the same prompt, and see whether the output changes significantly. If it does, then that data was indispensable for generating the output for that prompt. Something tells me we won't see such experiments done by OpeanAI any time soon.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  A paraphrased novel is clearly a copyright violation under existing laws. If you use GPT to produce one, then you will be sued. This does not imply that the underlying model is a copyright violation. There is no case law on the copyright status of models but it is generally believed that training a model is fair use. In the human analogy: it is legal to read Harry Potter and to learn Harry Potter from memory such that a copy of it is stored within your head. But if you reproduce and publish or perform substantial parts of Harry Potter from memory you are violating copyright (subject to the various exceptions to copyright: quotation, parody, etc).
- l33tman 4y ago
  "If it does, then that data was indispensable for generating the output for that prompt." It gets murkier than this, by far. The diffusion models are not just trained on images, but on text. It varies by implementation but Stable Diffusion for example used a pre-trained CLIP transformer network from OpenAI (and subsequently OpenCLIP). CLIP can have internal associations between words that in turn steer the diffusion image generation. To given a simple example of how this could work (I'm not saying this particular example does work though): the model in total could understand that a "swedish flag" consists of a "yellow cross on a blue background", and it could have yellow crosses in its image training set, but no images of Swedish flags, and it would still understand how to draw a "Swedish flag" based on the language semantics. Just as a human, actually. So, this won't work. A style can be inferred and described and it doesn't necessarily need to be in the image training set at all.
  - romwell 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out! I guess the test I described is the simplest case of detecting appropriation by AI. Still, I think it would be a good start.
tveita 4y ago
> so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers? Yes, obviously. We haven't found 40,000 year old telegraph stations in caves. No one thinks weaving is an intrinsic part of being human. The cat is out of the bag, but we should think very carefully about what we're leaving behind before we embrace an artless society. > Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue. This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper? Just write "crying woman bleeds from head in front of ruined building, warzone (pulitzer) [trending on Flickr]" in the little text box, click generate, ship it, and go for coffee.
- CapsAdmin 4y ago
  > This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper? Who cares about playing against a chess player when you can just play against an AI opponent for free on your computer? Who cares about going to a fancy bar when you can just drink at home for less? Who cares about buying expensive concert tickets when you can just watch a recorded version for free on the internet later? Who cares about buying a luxury car when a basic model gets you from A to B just as well? . People like you and many many others who think these questions are dumb will be the primary market for art.