3 ms·
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
by 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 agoCalm 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 agoYou 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.