4 ms·

I just disagree that it's shady. If you put your personal info into public circulation I think it's absolutely morally fine to have a model train on it.

by ivalm 3y ago

danpalmer 3y ago
There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use. Similarly, blog posts are in public, but not being given away for anyone to resell or include in their product. For an image/photography example, I may have my photo taken at an event and sign a release or agree to the event's T&Cs that say they can put publicity photos on their social media or website, but I don't intend that my photo will be used by an unrelated party to generate images of my face (this may not actually be restricted, yet, but I'd prefer it to be and I suspect few would consider it a reasonable outcome).
- DougBTX 3y ago
  > There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use Copying books can be fair use if it is sufficiently transformative, copyright doesn't block all use of copyrighted material. A major case on this was around Google building a search index for books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,.... Open AI is currently attempting to argue that training a model is more transformative than building a search index, whether they win that argument or not is still to be seen.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    This is true for some types of transformative work, but aggregating to make money off others work is not generally allowed. I think Open AI are in for a hard time with this when people look at the results and see their work clearly.
  - jprete 3y ago
    Building and granting access to a generative model is far more damaging to the market prospects of the infringed works, which is also a factor. Like…the whole goal is for it to be able to replace what humans do, which is about as market-damaging as I can imagine. I’m not a lawyer, though.
aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
your data can be public without your consent, what then ?
- ivalm 3y ago
  I may sue the person who made it public without my consent.

I just disagree that it's shady. If you put your personal info into public circulation I think it's absolutely morally fine to have a model train on it.

by ivalm 3y ago

I just disagree that it's shady. If you put your personal info into public circulation I think it's absolutely morally fine to have a model train on it.

danpalmer 3y ago

There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use. Similarly, blog posts are in public, but not being given away for anyone to resell or include in their product. For an image/photography example, I may have my photo taken at an event and sign a release or agree to the event's T&Cs that say they can put publicity photos on their social media or website, but I don't intend that my photo will be used by an unrelated party to generate images of my face (this may not actually be restricted, yet, but I'd prefer it to be and I suspect few would consider it a reasonable outcome).

DougBTX 3y ago
> There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use Copying books can be fair use if it is sufficiently transformative, copyright doesn't block all use of copyrighted material. A major case on this was around Google building a search index for books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,.... Open AI is currently attempting to argue that training a model is more transformative than building a search index, whether they win that argument or not is still to be seen.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  This is true for some types of transformative work, but aggregating to make money off others work is not generally allowed. I think Open AI are in for a hard time with this when people look at the results and see their work clearly.
- jprete 3y ago
  Building and granting access to a generative model is far more damaging to the market prospects of the infringed works, which is also a factor. Like…the whole goal is for it to be able to replace what humans do, which is about as market-damaging as I can imagine. I’m not a lawyer, though.

aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago

your data can be public without your consent, what then ?

ivalm 3y ago
I may sue the person who made it public without my consent.