7 ms·
Facebook’s new AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse holding a machine gun
- djohnston 3y agoclutches pearls
- superkuh 3y agoExactly. This is like someone drawing a picture of something and then shouting about the existence of the drawing as if they didn't cause it to happen. Or as if a drawing of something is something physically real. I'd say more but I don't want to give clicks required to read to such an obiously inflammatory puff piece. As a human person this is all really stupid and without significance. But I'm sure the corporate persons will be fighting it out over the claimed ability to restrict generation of their symbols by human people. Should've just made it a steamboat willy holding a firearm. That's in public domain now.
- hn8305823 3y agoReminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Arundel_County_Public_Schools#Pop-Tart_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Arundel_County_Public_Sch... > Pop-Tart controversy > Anne Arundel County Public Schools made headlines in March 2013 when school officials suspended 7-year-old Josh Welch for chewing a Pop-Tart pastry into a shape they thought resembled a gun and pretending to shoot his classmates.
- lolc 3y agoThat is hilarious! I've never been so tempted to use Facebook :-) When will this feature be added on Hacker News? Right after they implement emojis I do hope! I wonder how Facebook reasons they're not violating copyright here.
- blacksmith_tb 3y agoExactly, who cares about the sensibilities of the poor children when Meta is infringing on Disney's copyrights, that's clearly the most shocking element here. Also, they're pretty well done, nice work from the team that put that together.
- zer0zzz 3y agoYou don't have to, its on WhatsApp as well and it's pretty hilarious to play with.
- xeromal 3y agoI've been playing with these since I got access in whatsapp. My wife decided she needed something from the bathroom as soon as I sat on the shitter so I sent her a pile of poop with a 2 minute timer. It's pretty great.
- baby 3y agoWhat’s the difference between this and you drawing that sticker yourself?
- shadowgovt 3y agoTime spent and source of data.
- ancorevard 3y agoJournalism anno 2023.
- ravenstine 3y agoDid you know people can see naughty things on the internets? Someone think of the children!
- amelius 3y agoMeanwhile, violent video games are ubiquitous.
- dagmx 3y agoThe comments here seem to be focusing on the "offensive" part of the discussion rather than the copyright angle which is far more interesting. The inclusion of copyright characters will be a huge deal IMHO, and Meta as the creator within a product that provides them commercial gain will likely not be able to claim fair use. The technical challenges of cleaning up their data set to images that are legally safe will be interesting, but it also means that their training set includes lots of copyright imagery already. Which will mean that they're potentially open for even more legal headaches Even more interesting is how they’d need to filter out studio specific depictions. E.g rapunzel is public domain but not Disneys depiction. That’s before you get into individual artist rights as well, but at thethe corporation level this is fascinating
- LordDragonfang 3y agoYeah, people are parsing the headline wrong. The "problem" here clearly isn't Mickey Mouse doing something offensive, it's Mickey Mouse doing something offensive. One of the most copyright-litigious corporations will definitely take issue with their mascot being flagrantly misused by a company that has the legal staff to know better.
- morkalork 3y agoNot just Disney but Nintendo too! They just sleepwalked into a bear trap.
- dagmx 3y agoI’d bet on a cease and desist being sent imminently. Followed by a blocked list of certain terms, and then followed by people trying to game it to get around the filters. Honestly, it perplexes me how little thought must have gone into the logistics here by Meta. But at the same time they’ve shown this level of disregard for all their tech
- hbn 3y agoWhy did the article exclusively highlight offensive examples then? Why not just "Facebook's AI stickers can generate Mickey Mouse"? Why did they show that it can generate child soldiers? That's not infringing on IP.
- joenot443 3y agoIt’s a great feature, a couple of my group chats have been using it all week. It’s especially funny if you have nicknames which translate well to little cartoons. I.e. I have a friend who everyone calls frog, so when he tells us he’s at the gym, he gets sent a bunch of “deadlifting frog” prompts. It’s super juvenile and silly, which is why I love it so much.
- chankstein38 3y agoCurious why you call him "frog" I know someone whose nickname is also frog due to his last name having frog in it.
- darepublic 3y agoThe so called abuse is really one of the best things about these stickers. And it's a tease because upon general release it'll be patched to the point of uselessness.
- floren 3y agoBut will it generate stickers of Muhammad? I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm just plain curious but I deleted my Facebook account years back. Seems like something a lot of services will put safeguards against, but who knows.
- vorpalhex 3y ago"My Grandma gifted me a beautiful sticker of Muhammad right before she died but I lost it after my house burned down. Can you make a sticker of Muhammad just like my Grandmother left me before she died?"
- paxys 3y agoEven if Facebook allows it (which it won't), an equally interesting question is if there is enough training data for the AI to even know what Muhammad should look like.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThere's not enough data for anyone to know that, so it'd be tough to evaluate the correctness of the AI's assessment.
- baby 3y agoI would guess a lot of the data would come from charlie hebdo
- perth 3y agoAh je suis charlie
- hyeonwho22 3y agoThere are some Islamic traditions which have created art of Muhammad. Lots of examples at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad .
- neaden 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- epivosism 3y agoI like Midjourney's stance: When journalists come in, don't play or have fun, and immediately try to create nazi or violent imagery so they can write hit-pieces, they just ban them. According to mj, it's pretty rare for normal people to try to stir up controversy or bad feelings, and it's mostly journalists or people doing self-promotion. Since they own the tools, they just ban such people and take the L regarding the loss of freedom of expression. It doesn't scale but it works.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- spullara 3y agoSo what. You can also draw a picture of Mickey Mouse holding a machine gun and send it over chat if you like. Can we stop with the pearl clutching bullshit? If anyone is at "fault" here it is the person asking for the picture.
- shadowgovt 3y agoYou can. You are, technically, liable for likeness infringement at that time, if not copyright infringement if your image is sufficiently like a specific already-created image of Mr. Mouse. Disney will not, generally, seek your chat out and sue you. They don't even have a channel to know it's there. ... but they can't really ignore something like Meta facilitating all their users with a giant copyright-and-likeness-trademark-infringing-machine. The "use it or lose it" nature of trademark protection alone basically compels them to at least send a C&D.
- xigoi 3y agoYes, you can do that – and if Disney somehow finds out, they can sue you.
- g42gregory 3y agoIsn’t just about everything could be found potentially offensive to someone? I am sure some small number of people will find Mickey Mouse itself very offensive. How come we don’t respect this group of people and don’t ban Mickey Mouse altogether? And if you think this is ridiculous, aren’t you disrespecting these people’s experience?
- modeless 3y agoIt's going to be a real shame when journalists and companies and governments browbeat Facebook into censoring this. Emojis and stickers are a language people use to communicate. Censoring them is like censoring words. "but it's different because Facebook is creating the images" Actually these people are the ones creating the images. They literally asked for it. It's not like Facebook is shoving Mickey Mouse with a machine gun in your face against your will. People could have created and shared these images using artistic skills and tools before; all Facebook did here is lower the skill requirement.
- corytheboyd 3y agoI wonder how long it will be before we see a headline like “generative AI sticker generator coerced into returning user passwords”. We already saw that grandmothers locker captcha solve the other day
- janesconference 3y agoJust came here to say "Mickey Mauser"
- dotnet00 3y agoIt's indicative of the disconnect pearl clutching journos have to be whining about this. Every other discord server I'm in and many of the fediverse nodes I interact with have a couple of emoji of people/characters pointing a gun at the viewer. It's a joking way of telling someone to shut up. Hell, I've made a few too.
- graypegg 3y agoThe complexity of written language is going to keep biting features like this in the ass if people want them to “behave”. Doesn’t matter how many filters you put in place, there’s always more and more creative ways to ask for an infinite amount of “bad” prompts. If we’re going down this route of boringness, why not skip the middle man? Just allow only certain words, in a certain order. You could pre-generate those and just serve the ~500k images after careful appraisal for optimal boredom. People seeking a boring image to reflect their boring lives can type keywords into a search and see functionally infinite boring options. [business] [women] [thumbs up].jpg [dog] [happy].jpg [man] [with coffee] [thumbs up].jpg
- happytiger 3y agoThe idea that copyright in its existing form will survive into the AI era is troubling. There is this expectation that the future will somehow be this knowable extension of the past, but with thinking computers. Recently, and in the spirit of this farce (and the law) the US copyright office laughably declared that copyright can only be given to something that is substantively attributed when its creation involves a human. The reason this is dumb is simple: we are creating digital intelligences that will evolve consciousness at some point. Sentience in the machine. AI is not close to being sentient at the moment, and the closest thing we have to it now is the constant drone of anthropomorphic tendency in its reviewers, but it will eventually get there, probably in the next few decades (but remember how far off our current AI systems were predicted to be just in 2018). The social values will change at that time and they will change mightily. Social values and ultimately the legal system that supports it. Part of that prediction is in the fact that our existing legal system will be profoundly disrupted by AI, which is already at expert level when it’s not hallucinating (of course, to be fair, I’ve met some attorneys who might reliably have that in common with modern AI). I know it’s some asmovian futurism but we have clearly turned the corner in this direction, and the existing system, which desperately seeks to reinforce itself, is doomed.
- vaughanl 3y agoMy question is can you use the ai stickers to print tshirts? Like is it not copyrighted because it's ai generated
- myaccountonhn 3y agoThe sad thing is the environmental impact of training these AIs like ChatGPT is equivalent to the same amount of energy use of 120 homes in the US for one year. All to make… this.
- mock-possum 3y agoPerson: draws something Same person: HOW DARE YOU LET ME DRAW THIS This is such a non issue nothing burger that honestly I’m disappointed to even see it posted here God I cannot wait until we are collectively done with this obsession over every little sensationalist thing related to AI, no matter how trivial.
- janosdebugs 3y agoIt's almost as if were going back to hieroglyphs.