3 ms·
From the article: researchers were able to reproduce training images (and bad versions of them at that) 0.03 percent of the time. Not 3 percent, mind you, but 1
by sdenton4 4y ago
From the article: researchers were able to reproduce training images (and bad versions of them at that) 0.03 percent of the time. Not 3 percent, mind you, but 109 out of 350,000 images could be reproduced. And if you go back to the paper, these tended to be images which were heavily duplicated in the training set, so the failure modes should be easy to guard against...
- jrm4 4y agoSure, but I strongly suspect that in court the visceral impact of "Look, there's the image, it was in there," of even just ONE might just be enough to sway a judge or jury, percentages be darned.
- sdenton4 4y agoEh, there's a lot of space for argument and deliberation in a courtroom, moreso than a hacker news comment section... This is a rare issue with an obvious fix, so I wouldn't expect a ruling to hinge on it. (Additionally, the Lott image doesn't have any real harm; it's heavily reproduced already and freely enough licensed to appear on Wikipedia.) My guess is that because there's a lot of these cases coming the courts are really going to want to come up with some tests for whether a model is ok or not. So even if they say SD did a bad thing with these few images, that's not going to be enough to rule out the broader class of algorithms - next week they'll have another Getty case against the algorithm with the technical mitigation for the rare copied images.
- jrm4 4y agoBut a "rare issue with an obvious fix" sounds like a good Streisand effect type-target to me. Technologically I know that this is a pretty honest statement of the problem, but I'd expect A LOT OF PEOPLE to read this as "oh, look, they're trying to tweak it to 'destroy evidence.'"