4 ms·

There's too much money at stake for the big players for this not to be labeled illegal any time now.

by Garvi 3y ago

NoboruWataya 3y ago
Which big players? There are some big players with an interest in facilitating the pervasion of AI, sure, but as far as I can tell there are are least as many big players who stand to lose from the widespread erosion of intellectual property rights that comes with it.
- Garvi 3y ago
  I had Microsoft, Google and Apple in mind as they are heavily invested into AI. Which big players are you talking about?
  - NoboruWataya 3y ago
    Publishers, record labels, movie studios, basically all of the businesses that have spent decades lobbying to strengthen the intellectual property laws that are now being undermined.
    - CelestialTeapot 3y ago
      Yeah, but those guys want to get rid of those greedy artists, so they're all for AI they can leverage. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/08/google-record-labels-working-on-deal-covering-musical-deepfakes/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/08/google-record-labels-work...
jncfhnb 3y ago
Seems incredibly unlikely
Hamuko 3y ago
Illegal where? Because I have a hard time believing it'd be illegal in the US due to the First Amendment existing.
- Garvi 3y ago
  Freedom of speech in the US? I'm gonna laugh all the way into negative internet happy points that are gonna teach me a lesson never to say this again, unless this comment gets removed by the local censor :)
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
The first amendment is going to slap the taste out of their mouths if they try it. If you want to steal my data for your personal use, I am under no obligation to play nice with you.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  It's illegal to booby-trap your house with the malicious intent to kill trespassers. With enough lawyers/lobbying, the same argument could work to criminalize the intent to break the product, even if it violates your license (separate offence).
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    Here in the real world, booby-trapping a house is entirely different than ensuring that your data set is fucked up when you're so lazy that you will just steal from everybody. You will never get courts to conflate the two issues because they are fundamentally different. I have a constitutional right to my speech. You do not.
    - orbital-decay 3y ago
      Calm down please, you seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I don't justify training without consent, I explain how the argument of the grandparent can be applied in reality. Yes, with enough legal backing they can sue you for the damages if they can prove the intent to poison their model. This intent doesn't have anything with freedom of your speech or the copyright. They might violate the license for your artwork and you can try suing them, but you are also not within your right to damage the rest of their work (which this thing attempts to do). Also the word "theft" can't be legally used in court in copyright infringement cases.
      - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
        You just conflated homemade booby traps with stealing data, my guy. I am under zero obligation to ensure that my works are compatible with your models. They have the obligation to ask. I don't have the obligation to seek them out to give consent. But I'll humor you. Let's assume that they sue me. Know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to sue them for the value of their entire corporation for stealing my work.
itslennysfault 3y ago
Nah, they'll use the easiest/cheapest/fastest way to prevent this, and, in this case, I'm pretty sure that is not litigation, but technical. I'm pretty sure they will be able to filter this stuff out or minimize its impact on training.
- Garvi 3y ago
  That makes a lot of sense. I was going off the assumption the technical way would be impractical and an never ending arms race. We'll see, I guess.
dragonwriter 3y ago
This isn't the first such poisoning method published is that they are announced, and then quickly its shown that (1) they aren’t really visually acceptable for most real art when you look at images at a bigger size than what is included in the announcement paper, resulting in noticeable quality degradation and/or (2) they can be easily countered, usually, IIRC, both. I think it seems very likely that that this will always be the case: if it is visually neutral enough to be acceptable for use, there will be a way to train systems to generate art that visually resembles the original based on the output.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

There's too much money at stake for the big players for this not to be labeled illegal any time now.

by Garvi 3y ago

There's too much money at stake for the big players for this not to be labeled illegal any time now.

Which big players? There are some big players with an interest in facilitating the pervasion of AI, sure, but as far as I can tell there are are least as many big players who stand to lose from the widespread erosion of intellectual property rights that comes with it.

Garvi 3y ago
I had Microsoft, Google and Apple in mind as they are heavily invested into AI. Which big players are you talking about?
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Publishers, record labels, movie studios, basically all of the businesses that have spent decades lobbying to strengthen the intellectual property laws that are now being undermined.
  - CelestialTeapot 3y ago
    Yeah, but those guys want to get rid of those greedy artists, so they're all for AI they can leverage. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/08/google-record-labels-working-on-deal-covering-musical-deepfakes/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2023/08/google-record-labels-work...

jncfhnb 3y ago

Seems incredibly unlikely

Hamuko 3y ago

Illegal where? Because I have a hard time believing it'd be illegal in the US due to the First Amendment existing.

Garvi 3y ago
Freedom of speech in the US? I'm gonna laugh all the way into negative internet happy points that are gonna teach me a lesson never to say this again, unless this comment gets removed by the local censor :)

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

The first amendment is going to slap the taste out of their mouths if they try it. If you want to steal my data for your personal use, I am under no obligation to play nice with you.

orbital-decay 3y ago
It's illegal to booby-trap your house with the malicious intent to kill trespassers. With enough lawyers/lobbying, the same argument could work to criminalize the intent to break the product, even if it violates your license (separate offence).
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  Here in the real world, booby-trapping a house is entirely different than ensuring that your data set is fucked up when you're so lazy that you will just steal from everybody. You will never get courts to conflate the two issues because they are fundamentally different. I have a constitutional right to my speech. You do not.
  - orbital-decay 3y ago
    Calm down please, you seem to be misunderstanding my comment. I don't justify training without consent, I explain how the argument of the grandparent can be applied in reality. Yes, with enough legal backing they can sue you for the damages if they can prove the intent to poison their model. This intent doesn't have anything with freedom of your speech or the copyright. They might violate the license for your artwork and you can try suing them, but you are also not within your right to damage the rest of their work (which this thing attempts to do). Also the word "theft" can't be legally used in court in copyright infringement cases.
    - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
      You just conflated homemade booby traps with stealing data, my guy. I am under zero obligation to ensure that my works are compatible with your models. They have the obligation to ask. I don't have the obligation to seek them out to give consent. But I'll humor you. Let's assume that they sue me. Know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to sue them for the value of their entire corporation for stealing my work.

itslennysfault 3y ago

Nah, they'll use the easiest/cheapest/fastest way to prevent this, and, in this case, I'm pretty sure that is not litigation, but technical. I'm pretty sure they will be able to filter this stuff out or minimize its impact on training.

Garvi 3y ago
That makes a lot of sense. I was going off the assumption the technical way would be impractical and an never ending arms race. We'll see, I guess.

dragonwriter 3y ago

This isn't the first such poisoning method published is that they are announced, and then quickly its shown that (1) they aren’t really visually acceptable for most real art when you look at images at a bigger size than what is included in the announcement paper, resulting in noticeable quality degradation and/or (2) they can be easily countered, usually, IIRC, both. I think it seems very likely that that this will always be the case: if it is visually neutral enough to be acceptable for use, there will be a way to train systems to generate art that visually resembles the original based on the output.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]