6 ms·

I hate to sound glib here, but, "...And for my next trick, robots.txt!" I don't think we have any choice in opting in or out to being model fodder, the only ch

by aliqot 4y ago

I hate to sound glib here, but, "...And for my next trick, robots.txt!" I don't think we have any choice in opting in or out to being model fodder, the only choice is in whether or not to emit that which we seek to keep out of its view. Anything in a public space will be assumed public first. It didn't stop copilot, it's not going to stop OpenAI, and the next thing won't be stopped either. If you're carrying a phone right now, you're already feeding models aisle by aisle as you walk through retail stores. Nobody scoffs at an anti-theft camera when they're shopping for drill bits, but would you feel the same way if it said it is for advertising purposes? If you thought phones and social media were the opiate of the masses, just you wait. From top to bottom, from consumer to producer to middleman, the entire world is salivating at this opportunity and there is too much gold in them hills for any of this to stop. Any AI model that fails in this current market will be the ones who make a gentleman's agreement with the wide unaccountable internet to hobble themselves for un-spendable good-guy points. I view and reward this license as having noble intent, but limited efficacy against those who'd do the most harm to us, the unscrupulous.

rognjen 4y ago
Does Github support robots?
LordKeren 4y ago
Nothing short of sweeping legislation will matter here. And given the US’s recent track record for legislating technology, AI is going to be the Wild West for the foreseeable future. Guess we’ll just see what the EU decided
CharlesW 4y ago
This is the "criminals^H^H^H^H^H tech companies will steal content anyway, so why bother?" argument, but that seems defeatist to me. Laws forcing tech companies to attribute sources for generated content would help.
- aliqot 4y ago
  It's not "why bother", it's a critique on the specific license at hand and its efficacy against this issue.
- stale2002 4y ago
  No actually. Instead it is that training AI in this data, is fully legally, with or without your permission. Fair use allows you to ignore the wishes of the original copyright holder.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > No actually. > Instead it is that training AI in this data, is fully legally, with or without your permission. > Fair use allows you to ignore the wishes of the original copyright holder. I keep seeing this sentiment repeated again and again. Wrong facts travel faster than right ones, it seems. "Fair use" is a legal term allowing certain exemptions to copyright enforcement, which recognised in many jurisdictions, and also recognised across jurisdictions via WIP treaties, or other reciprocal recognition. There is no fair use exemption that I am aware of that specifically recognises "learning" or "training" as a fair use exemption. Everyone who makes the statement you did, when asked for a citation, throws out some court case which made exemptions for reverse-engineering. They didn't call it fair use. The situation was "let's learn how this works so we can fix it/clone it". THIS situation is not "lets learn how this works", it's "lets train an entity with this". Do you have a citation[1] for that assertion that fair use exemptions apply in the case of learning or training? [1] I know you don't. I'm going to ask anyway.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Really? You have had multi discussions about fair use and yet you weren't aware of the 3rd factor in the 4 factor test of fair use? Here it is, since you were not aware: "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken". That is what I am referencing, when I am talking about training an AI being covered under fair use. Obviously, I didn't mean "Well, if you have 1 single image, and I 'train' the model, on that 1 single image, and it produces the exact same image pixel for pixel in the model, this is allowed because 'training' is a bullet proof exception, in the law itself". Thats obviously not what I meant. Instead, what I am saying, is that if there is a model, trained on millions and millions of images, the output of the model is fair use, because it is not taking significantly from your individual work.
omegaworks 4y ago
We are not as powerless as you claim we are. There are billions of dollars of capital being allocated toward building AI systems, the most abundant sources of which like to view (or at minimum present) themselves as above-board, legal and operating within some ethical framework. If there is visible pushback and attention to the harms of AI, whether they are visited on the creators used for training or moderators standing in the way of blatant negative outputs, this can alter that investment. When we throw up our hands and believe that development of this technology in the most exploitative and unscrupulous way is inevitable, we politically disarm ourselves.

by aliqot 4y ago

rognjen 4y ago

Does Github support robots?

LordKeren 4y ago

Nothing short of sweeping legislation will matter here. And given the US’s recent track record for legislating technology, AI is going to be the Wild West for the foreseeable future. Guess we’ll just see what the EU decided

CharlesW 4y ago

This is the "criminals^H^H^H^H^H tech companies will steal content anyway, so why bother?" argument, but that seems defeatist to me. Laws forcing tech companies to attribute sources for generated content would help.

aliqot 4y ago
It's not "why bother", it's a critique on the specific license at hand and its efficacy against this issue.
stale2002 4y ago
No actually. Instead it is that training AI in this data, is fully legally, with or without your permission. Fair use allows you to ignore the wishes of the original copyright holder.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > No actually. > Instead it is that training AI in this data, is fully legally, with or without your permission. > Fair use allows you to ignore the wishes of the original copyright holder. I keep seeing this sentiment repeated again and again. Wrong facts travel faster than right ones, it seems. "Fair use" is a legal term allowing certain exemptions to copyright enforcement, which recognised in many jurisdictions, and also recognised across jurisdictions via WIP treaties, or other reciprocal recognition. There is no fair use exemption that I am aware of that specifically recognises "learning" or "training" as a fair use exemption. Everyone who makes the statement you did, when asked for a citation, throws out some court case which made exemptions for reverse-engineering. They didn't call it fair use. The situation was "let's learn how this works so we can fix it/clone it". THIS situation is not "lets learn how this works", it's "lets train an entity with this". Do you have a citation[1] for that assertion that fair use exemptions apply in the case of learning or training? [1] I know you don't. I'm going to ask anyway.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Really? You have had multi discussions about fair use and yet you weren't aware of the 3rd factor in the 4 factor test of fair use? Here it is, since you were not aware: "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken". That is what I am referencing, when I am talking about training an AI being covered under fair use. Obviously, I didn't mean "Well, if you have 1 single image, and I 'train' the model, on that 1 single image, and it produces the exact same image pixel for pixel in the model, this is allowed because 'training' is a bullet proof exception, in the law itself". Thats obviously not what I meant. Instead, what I am saying, is that if there is a model, trained on millions and millions of images, the output of the model is fair use, because it is not taking significantly from your individual work.

omegaworks 4y ago

We are not as powerless as you claim we are. There are billions of dollars of capital being allocated toward building AI systems, the most abundant sources of which like to view (or at minimum present) themselves as above-board, legal and operating within some ethical framework. If there is visible pushback and attention to the harms of AI, whether they are visited on the creators used for training or moderators standing in the way of blatant negative outputs, this can alter that investment. When we throw up our hands and believe that development of this technology in the most exploitative and unscrupulous way is inevitable, we politically disarm ourselves.