3 ms·

> That is not "we can make it reproduce training images" didn't say that, all I said is it's a deterministic lossy compression function of the inputs (unless r

> That is not "we can make it reproduce training images" didn't say that, all I said is it's a deterministic lossy compression function of the inputs (unless randomness is deliberately introduced) and as such it should be treated the same way as zlib or jpeg for copyright purposes

RC_ITR 4y ago
I think you're really stretching the definition of deterministic here. For example, switching training order of images has a known impact on outputs, but I don't see the equivalent in traditional compression. I agree with you that it is computer code that runs on circuits (and is therefore deterministic in a very loose sense), but it is fundamentally incorrect to compare it to traditional image compression.
f_devd 4y ago
> deterministic lossy compression function This would only be true if it didn't mix or 'forget' any of the training data for each prompt, and only then for the exact same inputs of the training data. That is a lot of qualifiers that aren't practically applicable. Slight side note: a deterministic lossy compression function should not always be treated the same as jpeg/zlib, as hash functions are technically also in that category.
pertymcpert 4y ago
Those are two orthogonal concepts. The temperature has nothing to do with whether it's a lossy compression function.
Robotbeat 4y ago
Copyright doesn't have anything to do with determinism. It existed in a pure analogue world before computers and if you had implemented your neural net in a fundamentally non-deterministic way (such as an analog neuromorphic neural net of some sort), it wouldn't make any difference one way or another. A human artist with no computer whatsoever and only their brain and basic writing (or painting) implements can break copyright just fine by writing out (or painting) copyrighted works from memory, then distributing them. It's the PRODUCTION side that is the copyright infringement, not the observing side.
avisser 4y ago
I have no idea why your replies seem to think you're being outrageous. I've seen the image from one of the AI services that is a very clear almost-reproduction of a Getty Images photo. I wouldn't want to be the defense's lawyer when that image gets shown to a jury. https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-lawsuit-getty-images-stable-diffusion https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-...

RC_ITR 4y ago

I think you're really stretching the definition of deterministic here. For example, switching training order of images has a known impact on outputs, but I don't see the equivalent in traditional compression. I agree with you that it is computer code that runs on circuits (and is therefore deterministic in a very loose sense), but it is fundamentally incorrect to compare it to traditional image compression.

f_devd 4y ago

> deterministic lossy compression function This would only be true if it didn't mix or 'forget' any of the training data for each prompt, and only then for the exact same inputs of the training data. That is a lot of qualifiers that aren't practically applicable. Slight side note: a deterministic lossy compression function should not always be treated the same as jpeg/zlib, as hash functions are technically also in that category.

pertymcpert 4y ago

Those are two orthogonal concepts. The temperature has nothing to do with whether it's a lossy compression function.

Robotbeat 4y ago

Copyright doesn't have anything to do with determinism. It existed in a pure analogue world before computers and if you had implemented your neural net in a fundamentally non-deterministic way (such as an analog neuromorphic neural net of some sort), it wouldn't make any difference one way or another. A human artist with no computer whatsoever and only their brain and basic writing (or painting) implements can break copyright just fine by writing out (or painting) copyrighted works from memory, then distributing them. It's the PRODUCTION side that is the copyright infringement, not the observing side.

avisser 4y ago

I have no idea why your replies seem to think you're being outrageous. I've seen the image from one of the AI services that is a very clear almost-reproduction of a Getty Images photo. I wouldn't want to be the defense's lawyer when that image gets shown to a jury. https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-lawsuit-getty-images-stable-diffusion https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-copyright-...