2 ms·
You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology. FWIW I do believe training a model is fundamentally different from training a human. Th
by triceratops 4y ago
You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology.
FWIW I do believe training a model is fundamentally different from training a human.
The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually.
- srslack 4y ago>The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually. It was deemed "privacy violating" under specific privacy laws within those jurisdictions. i.e. go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so. there's no substantial reproduction here, in the context of stable diffusion, until there is, and then yeah in that instance it's probably a copyright violation, like a substantial reproduction made by a human would be. but training itself, probably not. but yes, there have been no rulings on it in this context.
- triceratops 4y agoI'm aware privacy law applied to facial recognition, not copyright law. Nowhere did I imply that it was copyright law. I brought it up to illustrate that "activity + human" vs "activity + computer" can differ in legality for the same activity. > go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so I don't need to do anything. Let's see until one of these cases come to the courts. You're talking as though it's a foregone conclusion that they'll rule the way you think. I wouldn't be so sure myself.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology. Until we pass 21st century laws, thats what applies.
- triceratops 4y agoOr a court ruling.