4 ms·

As soon as DRM for text and images is implemented companies such openai will be in for a ride. Unfortunately though open source models will be sacrificed in the

As soon as DRM for text and images is implemented companies such openai will be in for a ride. Unfortunately though open source models will be sacrificed in the process, but we need means to protect against the rampant ip theft ai companies do.

artninja1988 3y ago
No such thing as IP theft
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Let me guess - you think ip and copyright are “rent seeking”? What a weird age we live in. Where people defend corporations from stealing our work. Quite a shift from the reverse.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  It's entirely possible to steal IP, but the "AI art is theft" part of it is still legally up in the air.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    There are all sorts of things that are legal and immoral or disagreeable so even if ai art theft is legalised it’s still theft if the author doesnt want it to be used that way. It seems like “ai” is quite reliant on ingesting and storing massive property data to emulate “intelligence” - and thats equal to people downloading and storing movies and music. A thing we are not permitted to by the same corporations that you wish to help.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    I think what OP is referring to is the entirely reasonable legal argument that IP infringement is not actually "theft" The idea being: "Theft" isn't about "you get something you don't own," it means "you deprive someone else of THEIR property."
minimaxir 3y ago
Which means that companies will just license the data used to train models because they have the money to do so, or use their own data instead. That's how Adobe's Firefly works right now, and OpenAI just signed a licensing agreement with Shutterstock: https://venturebeat.com/ai/shutterstock-signs-6-year-training-data-agreement-with-openai/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/shutterstock-signs-6-year-trainin... Even if it became impossible to train AI on internet-accessible data, there's no change to the proliferation of generative AI other than keeping it entrenched and centralized in the power of a few players, and it has no impact on potentially taking jobs from artists, other than making it harder for artists to compete due to the lack of open-source alternatives.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  No problem then, people willing to make their content available to ai can do so by using such websites, people that value their work can use something else.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That has the same vibe as responding to the invention of the Jacquard loom by saying: "No problem then, people willing to make their designs available to automation can do so by using such punched cards, people that value their work can use something else." Home weaving does still exist. Not a very big employer any more, though.
    - LastTrain 3y ago
      All analogies are fraught but this one takes the cake. A more apt one is not wanting the Jaquard loom people to steal my designs.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        It was difficult for me to find even this half-baked[0] analogy, given we've never had AI before. The point I was aiming for is that even if your stuff isn't ever stolen (regardless of what exactly you mean by that), you're still going to be out of a job because the automaton is good enough to out-compete you economically. At least, that's my expectation, though I hope not for a few more years at least. [0] yes that pun was deliberate
jrm4 3y ago
You're probably getting downvoted because "DRM" was nearly a complete technical failure already, and there's no reason believe it would be different for AI?
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Normally i wouldnt advocate for drm but there needs to be a way to protect our content from this madness. I understand the backlash though and I am not worried about downvotes.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    Your content was never protected in the sense you want it to be protected. Since the moment you put it up online for people to see and hear, they were able to move on and create something else based upon this. Most of the time unconsciously. This is how humanity works. This is the reason we're still on this planet. AI accelerates the process like any other tool we've come up with since we climbed down the trees. You can complain and scream as much as you want, but it won't change. Even if you manage to regulate the whole western part of the internet. The rest of the world is bigger and won't sleep.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    "Normally i wouldnt advocate for drm but there needs to be a way to protect our content from this madness," said everybody you've ever disagreed with up until now.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    There are lots of ways, it's just that none of them should or can meaningfully involve pretending that the technology of conversion of content into ones and zeros can go backwards. Policy, education, law, etc.
- ls612 3y ago
  Unfortunatley I think you are wrong about this. DRM schemes are evolving to be nearly unbreakable in the future with the widespread adoption of security processors in everything. As long as there is a massive fundamental asymmetry between assembling a chip with a small amount of ROM and disassembling & reading that ROM while still making the chip usable, DRM schemes using PKI methods will become widespread and nigh unbreakable.
candiddevmike 3y ago
IMO, I think the entire "train on as much data as possible" is nearing its end. There are diminishing returns and it seems like a dead end strategy.
babyshake 3y ago
Watermarking images, particularly very high resolution images, I can understand, but I fail to see how with text, you would watermark it in a way that provides sufficient evidence it has been used for training data, unless the model is just quoting it at length.
- Closi 3y ago
  Text watermarks are possible - one previously-used method is to use different ascii characters for spaces and dashes, that looks invisible to the user but can be detected if it’s a straight copy-paste (even when printed due to slightly differing lengths). Of course it’s possible to process these out, same as an image watermark.

artninja1988 3y ago

No such thing as IP theft

gumballindie 3y ago
Let me guess - you think ip and copyright are “rent seeking”? What a weird age we live in. Where people defend corporations from stealing our work. Quite a shift from the reverse.
minimaxir 3y ago
It's entirely possible to steal IP, but the "AI art is theft" part of it is still legally up in the air.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  There are all sorts of things that are legal and immoral or disagreeable so even if ai art theft is legalised it’s still theft if the author doesnt want it to be used that way. It seems like “ai” is quite reliant on ingesting and storing massive property data to emulate “intelligence” - and thats equal to people downloading and storing movies and music. A thing we are not permitted to by the same corporations that you wish to help.
- jrm4 3y ago
  I think what OP is referring to is the entirely reasonable legal argument that IP infringement is not actually "theft" The idea being: "Theft" isn't about "you get something you don't own," it means "you deprive someone else of THEIR property."

minimaxir 3y ago

Which means that companies will just license the data used to train models because they have the money to do so, or use their own data instead. That's how Adobe's Firefly works right now, and OpenAI just signed a licensing agreement with Shutterstock: https://venturebeat.com/ai/shutterstock-signs-6-year-training-data-agreement-with-openai/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/shutterstock-signs-6-year-trainin... Even if it became impossible to train AI on internet-accessible data, there's no change to the proliferation of generative AI other than keeping it entrenched and centralized in the power of a few players, and it has no impact on potentially taking jobs from artists, other than making it harder for artists to compete due to the lack of open-source alternatives.

gumballindie 3y ago
No problem then, people willing to make their content available to ai can do so by using such websites, people that value their work can use something else.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That has the same vibe as responding to the invention of the Jacquard loom by saying: "No problem then, people willing to make their designs available to automation can do so by using such punched cards, people that value their work can use something else." Home weaving does still exist. Not a very big employer any more, though.
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    All analogies are fraught but this one takes the cake. A more apt one is not wanting the Jaquard loom people to steal my designs.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      It was difficult for me to find even this half-baked[0] analogy, given we've never had AI before. The point I was aiming for is that even if your stuff isn't ever stolen (regardless of what exactly you mean by that), you're still going to be out of a job because the automaton is good enough to out-compete you economically. At least, that's my expectation, though I hope not for a few more years at least. [0] yes that pun was deliberate

jrm4 3y ago

You're probably getting downvoted because "DRM" was nearly a complete technical failure already, and there's no reason believe it would be different for AI?

gumballindie 3y ago
Normally i wouldnt advocate for drm but there needs to be a way to protect our content from this madness. I understand the backlash though and I am not worried about downvotes.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  Your content was never protected in the sense you want it to be protected. Since the moment you put it up online for people to see and hear, they were able to move on and create something else based upon this. Most of the time unconsciously. This is how humanity works. This is the reason we're still on this planet. AI accelerates the process like any other tool we've come up with since we climbed down the trees. You can complain and scream as much as you want, but it won't change. Even if you manage to regulate the whole western part of the internet. The rest of the world is bigger and won't sleep.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  "Normally i wouldnt advocate for drm but there needs to be a way to protect our content from this madness," said everybody you've ever disagreed with up until now.
- jrm4 3y ago
  There are lots of ways, it's just that none of them should or can meaningfully involve pretending that the technology of conversion of content into ones and zeros can go backwards. Policy, education, law, etc.
ls612 3y ago
Unfortunatley I think you are wrong about this. DRM schemes are evolving to be nearly unbreakable in the future with the widespread adoption of security processors in everything. As long as there is a massive fundamental asymmetry between assembling a chip with a small amount of ROM and disassembling & reading that ROM while still making the chip usable, DRM schemes using PKI methods will become widespread and nigh unbreakable.

candiddevmike 3y ago

IMO, I think the entire "train on as much data as possible" is nearing its end. There are diminishing returns and it seems like a dead end strategy.

babyshake 3y ago

Watermarking images, particularly very high resolution images, I can understand, but I fail to see how with text, you would watermark it in a way that provides sufficient evidence it has been used for training data, unless the model is just quoting it at length.

Closi 3y ago
Text watermarks are possible - one previously-used method is to use different ascii characters for spaces and dashes, that looks invisible to the user but can be detected if it’s a straight copy-paste (even when printed due to slightly differing lengths). Of course it’s possible to process these out, same as an image watermark.