3 ms·

Right. Just like there is "no way" that a 3 Lb hink of gray cells can memorize epic poems or figure out how to design ships to fly to other celestial bodies.

by toss1 3y ago

Right. Just like there is "no way" that a 3 Lb hink of gray cells can memorize epic poems or figure out how to design ships to fly to other celestial bodies. IOW: It doesn't work that way. The GPTs do not store representations, they store what are effectively generation instructions. A formula ir program can generate nearly unlimited terabytes of data, but we don't need to store the output to recreate it; we need only store the formula or code. So the "only 3GB" argument does not mean that sufficient instructions have not been stored via ingesting an artist's works to effectively infringe on that artist's works without literally storing copies.

superkuh 3y ago
>sufficient instructions have not been stored via ingesting an artist's works to effectively infringe on that artist's works without literally storing copies. That's exactly what it means. It means no complete representations of the artists work are stored. The definition of fair use. Just like I'm not stealing anything when I go to an art museum and vague memories of some of the exhibits later influence a drawing I make.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > That's exactly what it means. It means no complete representations of the artists work are stored. The definition of fair use. That's... not the definition of fair use.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > Just like I'm not stealing anything when I go to an art museum and vague memories of some of the exhibits later influence a drawing I make. In the AI example, who is the ordinary human who viewed each of these works and is recalling them from memory?
  - superkuh 3y ago
    The 3GB bin file.
- toss1 3y ago
  Um, fair use is quoting a SMALL excerpt, or commenting on the piece. Fair use is not reproducing the same painting in the same style, regenerating almost verbatim large blocks of code or text, etc. But, while we can argue the boundaries of fair use all day, that is not the key point. The key point is: the argument that "3GB is too small to hold anything that could qualify as fair use" does not hold water. Just because you or I don't know how it would work, does not not mean that it cannot work. And it has indeed been shown to work in recreating art, text, and code. That OpenAI are now banning use of directives resembling "in the style of" is good evidence that they consider it a legitimate problem, although that is likely to be ultimately a speed-bump measure.
Ukv 3y ago
> but we don't need to store the output to recreate it; we need only store the formula or code. This doesn't exempt it from information theory. If a 3GiB model was trained on 5 billion images, it fundamentally cannot have more than ~5 bits of information per training image on average, regardless of whether those are instructions for its recreation or a compressed copy of it. Over-representation of some images (at the cost of the under-representation of others) is an issue, but it certainly cannot "produce a copy of any of its Training Images—which could number in the billions" as is claimed in the lawsuit against Stable Diffusion. > So the "only 3GB" argument does not mean that sufficient instructions have not been stored via ingesting an artist's works to effectively infringe on that artist's works Copyright applies to fixed works in a tangible medium of expression - and explicitly not formulae, procedures, or instructions like recipes. I don't think there's a bright line here, but this wouldn't be the direction I'd argue in if I wanted to classify machine learning as infringement.

by toss1 3y ago

superkuh 3y ago

>sufficient instructions have not been stored via ingesting an artist's works to effectively infringe on that artist's works without literally storing copies. That's exactly what it means. It means no complete representations of the artists work are stored. The definition of fair use. Just like I'm not stealing anything when I go to an art museum and vague memories of some of the exhibits later influence a drawing I make.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> That's exactly what it means. It means no complete representations of the artists work are stored. The definition of fair use. That's... not the definition of fair use.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> Just like I'm not stealing anything when I go to an art museum and vague memories of some of the exhibits later influence a drawing I make. In the AI example, who is the ordinary human who viewed each of these works and is recalling them from memory?
- superkuh 3y ago
  The 3GB bin file.
toss1 3y ago
Um, fair use is quoting a SMALL excerpt, or commenting on the piece. Fair use is not reproducing the same painting in the same style, regenerating almost verbatim large blocks of code or text, etc. But, while we can argue the boundaries of fair use all day, that is not the key point. The key point is: the argument that "3GB is too small to hold anything that could qualify as fair use" does not hold water. Just because you or I don't know how it would work, does not not mean that it cannot work. And it has indeed been shown to work in recreating art, text, and code. That OpenAI are now banning use of directives resembling "in the style of" is good evidence that they consider it a legitimate problem, although that is likely to be ultimately a speed-bump measure.

Ukv 3y ago

> but we don't need to store the output to recreate it; we need only store the formula or code. This doesn't exempt it from information theory. If a 3GiB model was trained on 5 billion images, it fundamentally cannot have more than ~5 bits of information per training image on average, regardless of whether those are instructions for its recreation or a compressed copy of it. Over-representation of some images (at the cost of the under-representation of others) is an issue, but it certainly cannot "produce a copy of any of its Training Images—which could number in the billions" as is claimed in the lawsuit against Stable Diffusion. > So the "only 3GB" argument does not mean that sufficient instructions have not been stored via ingesting an artist's works to effectively infringe on that artist's works Copyright applies to fixed works in a tangible medium of expression - and explicitly not formulae, procedures, or instructions like recipes. I don't think there's a bright line here, but this wouldn't be the direction I'd argue in if I wanted to classify machine learning as infringement.