5 ms·

While I agree with keeping the focus of people problems on people, I do disagree with your statement on local models as written. If you write the model from sc

While I agree with keeping the focus of people problems on people, I do disagree with your statement on local models as written. If you write the model from scratch, and create all the data it is trained on yourself, then yes I agree it is like using your imagination. However, these models are trained on commercial resources to at least some degree - so even your local model is likely still a commercial product. I struggle to identify a meaningful metaphor to support my point, which I think is an interesting note on the kind of new territory we are in. But in essence, it feels to me like if you use a commercial model locally to generate content that is illegal to trade commercially then you've effectively just put illegal content in a box and opened it at home. You cannot claim that a box containing illegal content is just a box and send it through the mail. So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content"

pjc50 3y ago
> So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content" I think we all know how that one is going to go.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  True But I think there is hope more in terms of what we publicly allow as opposed to what people actually do. As long as people cannot publicly assert that whatever they make with a local instance of an AI they downloaded is the same as just using their imagination, that would go a long way. They may do things they shouldn't anyway, and it may be completely unenforceable but at least we stop any compounding effects from happening in situations where it does come to light. Removes it from being plausible legal defenses as well. Otherwise the publicly available side of the tech is at risk of getting completely gimped
dragonwriter 3y ago
> However, these models are trained on commercial resources to at least some degree - so even your local model is likely still a commercial product. That's not how “commercial product” works (a product with a commercial product as an input or component is not itself ipso facto a commercial product, and especially not a product who has a component or input which is not itself a commercial product except in that it also has commercial products as components or inputs.)
- EricMausler 3y ago
  I was using the phrase relatively casually, but im interested to learn more there. I was not exactly trying to argue it ipso facto but rather just the nature of it lends itself to (imo) being a much more commercial experience than not when you take a commercial model off the shelf, bring it home, and ask it to show you content that would be illegal to trade otherwise. Basically I'm arguing that anything the model can generate is relevant to the transaction of the model itself once generated. As in, everytime a model generates something for you, you should think of that generated item as something you originally obtained in the same manner you obtained the model. Creating illegal content at home with a local model you downloaded off the internet is, to me, the same as just downloading illegal content directly from the internet. If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it's equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it’s equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret. Despite the hype, AI models aren’t painters, they are paint.
    - EricMausler 3y ago
      They are the worst qualities of both in this regard. It is not paint in that you do not have absolute control over its application, and it is not a painter in that it is not sophisticated and independently creative. It is paint in that it is simple, and it is a painter in that content can be generated on the fly and taking any content from it (imo) classifies as a trade.
creer 3y ago
I do see some logic to the idea that current AI is very similar to artists' brains: Trained by seeing mountains of images, including many of actual living persons. Nothing wrong with that for the artist. Most do pay attention and don't go out of their way to reproduce a specific person, except sometimes that's the entire idea and they do. - which sometimes results in a lawsuit. Same in music: currently you have to be extremely cautious and even then you will run afoul of several copyright claims.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  An AI can create as many illegal images as it wants within itself, as that would be akin to imagination. A person interacting with an AI is now a transaction and no longer imagination. The key point here is that a lot of legal issues pop up when you trade goods that do not exist when you do things alone and privately. Although the experience with an AI model might be private, my opinion is that long term the things it generates will be seen more as traded commodities than personal items you built with your tools
  - creer 3y ago
    The things the generative AI outputs are very much the result of prompt engineering based on the artist's selections. It's an artist's effort. Using a tool. They tell us how much of a pain it is to arrive at a specific desired result. But I will agree with you that where the law ends up is still up in the air. I sure hope it doesn't end up seeing all the output as "just stuff that was put in". And the law often does not end up on the side favorable to art. Wouldn't be the first time. See music copyright. See street photography in Europe.
    - EricMausler 3y ago
      It's new territory, not really just a tool nor just a box of things. I didn't want to overcomplicate my message so I went with asserting the box extreme as it puts the fuller range of legal options on the table. I do think in it's current state it should lean more towards box than tool. A tool typically doesn't create things on its own in a way that is hard to control. You need to use tools under your control. So I see the pain they feel to get specific results as in support of my claim that this is not simply a closed case classification as a tool that bears no responsibility. If it is sharing responsibility with the user for the output, then I consider that a relationship and the output a transaction. This protects users just as much as it limits their freedom of use. We don't control these models, and we should want protection against things it may create or hallucinate given our lack of control I agree that prompt engineering is an art, but imo that gets you as far as claiming the prompt itself as art - not the output from the model given that prompt.
creer 3y ago
There seems to often be an idea that the models "contain" the training images. Aren't they far too small for that? A point of having a model (LLM, whatever) is that the model is abstracted from the training data. And then, except coincidence that doesn't really matter, the model cannot regenerate exactly a person's source image. It can generate a likeness and that will be enough for people to complain about; and likeness is already actionable in narrow circumstances in current law if there was some intent. But otherwise, likeness, even very close likeness is safe in current law. One current problem is that copyright covers "derived" works. And it will have to be sorted out whether model training means everything that follows is "derived". I sure hope for not but who knows. Music law certainly goes pretty extreme on "derived". While elsewhere we are actually pretty free for our inspiration. The question of tools that are capable of generating illegal content is pretty safe currently. Not illegal. But there's no doubt that some large copyright owners will go after that sooner or later. It's tradition.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  I definitely understand the model does not contain the images. You gave a very valid description for probably the most critical copyright issue around it at the moment. I'd say my point is more around the fact that the content will have different legal standing depending on whether or not something produced by the model is considered a traded good or a private creative work using some tools. Copyright and likeness rights is only one area this impacts, but is a solid example. If the content is considered traded, then likeness is not allowed. If it is a private work created through use of a tool, then it is fine as long as it isn't traded or publicly displayed. My argument is that since the model is heavily influenced by its training, and the user did not train the model, that a trade is happening. The untrained model is the tool, but a trained model is now like a commodity and everything it produces is also a traded item. Does this argument make sense?

pjc50 3y ago

> So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content" I think we all know how that one is going to go.

EricMausler 3y ago
True But I think there is hope more in terms of what we publicly allow as opposed to what people actually do. As long as people cannot publicly assert that whatever they make with a local instance of an AI they downloaded is the same as just using their imagination, that would go a long way. They may do things they shouldn't anyway, and it may be completely unenforceable but at least we stop any compounding effects from happening in situations where it does come to light. Removes it from being plausible legal defenses as well. Otherwise the publicly available side of the tech is at risk of getting completely gimped

dragonwriter 3y ago

> However, these models are trained on commercial resources to at least some degree - so even your local model is likely still a commercial product. That's not how “commercial product” works (a product with a commercial product as an input or component is not itself ipso facto a commercial product, and especially not a product who has a component or input which is not itself a commercial product except in that it also has commercial products as components or inputs.)

EricMausler 3y ago
I was using the phrase relatively casually, but im interested to learn more there. I was not exactly trying to argue it ipso facto but rather just the nature of it lends itself to (imo) being a much more commercial experience than not when you take a commercial model off the shelf, bring it home, and ask it to show you content that would be illegal to trade otherwise. Basically I'm arguing that anything the model can generate is relevant to the transaction of the model itself once generated. As in, everytime a model generates something for you, you should think of that generated item as something you originally obtained in the same manner you obtained the model. Creating illegal content at home with a local model you downloaded off the internet is, to me, the same as just downloading illegal content directly from the internet. If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it's equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If a painter cannot sell you a portrait they painted of someone without their consent, then it’s equally illegal to invite the painter over your house and have them paint it for you in secret. Despite the hype, AI models aren’t painters, they are paint.
  - EricMausler 3y ago
    They are the worst qualities of both in this regard. It is not paint in that you do not have absolute control over its application, and it is not a painter in that it is not sophisticated and independently creative. It is paint in that it is simple, and it is a painter in that content can be generated on the fly and taking any content from it (imo) classifies as a trade.

creer 3y ago

I do see some logic to the idea that current AI is very similar to artists' brains: Trained by seeing mountains of images, including many of actual living persons. Nothing wrong with that for the artist. Most do pay attention and don't go out of their way to reproduce a specific person, except sometimes that's the entire idea and they do. - which sometimes results in a lawsuit. Same in music: currently you have to be extremely cautious and even then you will run afoul of several copyright claims.

EricMausler 3y ago
An AI can create as many illegal images as it wants within itself, as that would be akin to imagination. A person interacting with an AI is now a transaction and no longer imagination. The key point here is that a lot of legal issues pop up when you trade goods that do not exist when you do things alone and privately. Although the experience with an AI model might be private, my opinion is that long term the things it generates will be seen more as traded commodities than personal items you built with your tools
- creer 3y ago
  The things the generative AI outputs are very much the result of prompt engineering based on the artist's selections. It's an artist's effort. Using a tool. They tell us how much of a pain it is to arrive at a specific desired result. But I will agree with you that where the law ends up is still up in the air. I sure hope it doesn't end up seeing all the output as "just stuff that was put in". And the law often does not end up on the side favorable to art. Wouldn't be the first time. See music copyright. See street photography in Europe.
  - EricMausler 3y ago
    It's new territory, not really just a tool nor just a box of things. I didn't want to overcomplicate my message so I went with asserting the box extreme as it puts the fuller range of legal options on the table. I do think in it's current state it should lean more towards box than tool. A tool typically doesn't create things on its own in a way that is hard to control. You need to use tools under your control. So I see the pain they feel to get specific results as in support of my claim that this is not simply a closed case classification as a tool that bears no responsibility. If it is sharing responsibility with the user for the output, then I consider that a relationship and the output a transaction. This protects users just as much as it limits their freedom of use. We don't control these models, and we should want protection against things it may create or hallucinate given our lack of control I agree that prompt engineering is an art, but imo that gets you as far as claiming the prompt itself as art - not the output from the model given that prompt.

creer 3y ago

There seems to often be an idea that the models "contain" the training images. Aren't they far too small for that? A point of having a model (LLM, whatever) is that the model is abstracted from the training data. And then, except coincidence that doesn't really matter, the model cannot regenerate exactly a person's source image. It can generate a likeness and that will be enough for people to complain about; and likeness is already actionable in narrow circumstances in current law if there was some intent. But otherwise, likeness, even very close likeness is safe in current law. One current problem is that copyright covers "derived" works. And it will have to be sorted out whether model training means everything that follows is "derived". I sure hope for not but who knows. Music law certainly goes pretty extreme on "derived". While elsewhere we are actually pretty free for our inspiration. The question of tools that are capable of generating illegal content is pretty safe currently. Not illegal. But there's no doubt that some large copyright owners will go after that sooner or later. It's tradition.

EricMausler 3y ago
I definitely understand the model does not contain the images. You gave a very valid description for probably the most critical copyright issue around it at the moment. I'd say my point is more around the fact that the content will have different legal standing depending on whether or not something produced by the model is considered a traded good or a private creative work using some tools. Copyright and likeness rights is only one area this impacts, but is a solid example. If the content is considered traded, then likeness is not allowed. If it is a private work created through use of a tool, then it is fine as long as it isn't traded or publicly displayed. My argument is that since the model is heavily influenced by its training, and the user did not train the model, that a trade is happening. The untrained model is the tool, but a trained model is now like a commodity and everything it produces is also a traded item. Does this argument make sense?