4 ms·

All I see is AI companies poorly justifying their grift that they know they don't want to pay for the content that they are commercializing without permission a

• artninja1988 3y ago
  Afaik Getty's case is strong against stability because they were dumb enough not to remove the water marks before training so now their model recreates their watermark, which is an infringement. Also let's not pretend openai licensed their dataset from all the stock image sites they scraped. The main reason they have a deal with Shutterstock is probably easy access and also Shutterstock partnered up with openai for ai tech to sell on their website.
• Tadpole9181 3y ago
  When you're viewing everyone with a different opinion than you as a grifter, corporate rat, or some other malicious entity, you've disabled the ability or desire for people to try to engage with you. You won't be convinced, and you're already being uncivil and fallacious. AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Obviously impersonation and copyright law already applies to AI systems. But a discussion on training inputs is entirely novel to man and our laws, and it's a very nuanced and important topic. And as AI advances, it becomes increasingly difficult because of the diminishing distinction between "organic" learning and "artificial" learning. As well as when stopping AI from — as an example — learning from research papers means we miss out on life-saving medication. Where do property rights conflict with human rights? They're important conversations to have, but you've destroyed the opportunity to have them from the starting gun.
  • sillysaurusx 3y ago
    Thank you.
    • rvz 3y ago
      Thanks for what exactly?
      • Tadpole9181 3y ago
        It seems strange to interrogate why someone thanked someone else, doesn't it? Are you trying to start a fight with them over a simple acknowledgement that they agree?
        • nickthegreek 3y ago
          If every HN was full of thank you posts, it would be unreadable. Upvotes exist. I prefer comments to add to the discussion, so I don’t find the users request for more information to be that baffling. Their comment was at least trying to further their understanding, which is more than sillysaurx did.
          • Tadpole9181 3y ago
            Then vote and/or report? They aren't trying to further their understanding, that much is clear when their dialogue started by saying anyone who holds a different ideological position is a grifter. They're trying to start a fight with a bystander who supported the "other".
          • sillysaurusx 3y ago
            I’ve been on HN since the beginning. pg himself said that thank yous are fine. Empty but positive comments are not harmful. I’ll leave my gratitude a mystery. They have my thanks, and my axe.
  • Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > AI outputs should be regulated, of course. Why "of course"?
• Ukv 3y ago
  You likely benefit from machine learning applications constantly without realizing. The spam filters for your email, the scanning for defects of the products you use and the rails they were delivered on, when you enter a search query or translate a page into English, weather modelling to give you accurate predictions and early warnings, etc. To avoid IP law causing more damage than it already has with evergreening of medical patents, I think it strictly has to be the generation of substantially similar media that counts as infringement, as the comment you're replying to suggests - not just "this tumor detector was pretrained on a large number of web images before task-specific fine-tuning, so it's illegal because they didn't pay Getty beforehand" if training were to be infringement.