4 ms·

The thing is that those are really trivial or extreme examples. What we should take from this: 1. Generative AI systems are fully capable of producing material

The thing is that those are really trivial or extreme examples. What we should take from this: 1. Generative AI systems are fully capable of producing materials that infringe on copyright. 2. They do not inform users when they do so. So potentially any output could be infringing copyright source material, even from some obscure but still protected corner of the web, and anyone using that output could be exposed to lawsuit risk without warning. This is very hard to fix.

keiferski 3y ago
But how is that any different from creating an image from scratch? If I make a logo and use it for my business, but it turns out to be very similar to one already being used by another company, it’s the same situation. I think the main concern here is with the top 1,000 or so brands/copyrights which seem fairly straightforward to deal with using the method I described.
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  It's plagiarism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDp3cB5fHXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDp3cB5fHXQ). It's not the same situation. You can't possibly expect someone to be exposed to the entirety of the internet like ChatGPT is. It is a matter of scale. If you still think they are the same thing, the industrial revolution was about scale and had transformative impacts in the society.
  - madamelic 3y ago
    ChatGPT is not intelligent. It's the user's responsibility to ensure they aren't infringing on copyright. If you are producing creatives for pay, you absolutely shouldn't be right-click saving images and using directly off the web whether you got it from DALL-E or a Google search. Who cares about plagarism? Plagarism is a made up boogeyman created by high school English teachers. If the work is sufficiently composed of your own thoughts, the fact you used someone else's structure for part of it is not a problem as long as it isn't your entire work or entirely derivative of one work. If I use a Coca-Cola bottle cap as structure in a sculpture, that doesn't mean I am infringing on Coca-Cola's copyright. I still had to mold my original work to work with it.
    - gchamonlive 3y ago
      > Who cares about plagarism? I linked a 4h video on that which goes into painstaking details, which you skipped. It is in the context of content creators but can be extrapolated to various areas. And about intelligence, what do you mean by intelligence? ChatGPT is certainly not thinking like a human, if that is what you mean, but it can reason really well when given directions. That taxes demo when gpt4 launched is certainly a demonstration of emergent cognition in the predictive system. So depending on how you see intelligence, ChatGPT certainly shows a lot of it, if we only let go of human constraints of cognition.
taberiand 3y ago
Why isn't the solution a strong disclaimer when the user generates images along the lines of "beware that the images produced may not comply with copyright laws in your country" etc etc? Any artist can privately draw a picture of Mario, what's so different about having an LLM generate that image?
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There is a huge amount of copyrighted material in the world and these tools let you create a lot of content in a short time, that would imply an increased risk vs slower, more manual approaches. What I am also wondering is, if for some things copyrighted material could be somehow dominant in the output (beyond prompting more or less for it).
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  > what's so different about having an LLM generate that image? You don't have to pay 20 bucks a month for a private company to reproduce Mario manually at home for a start... you also can't reproduce Mario in many poses at an industrial scale solo. The list can go on, and we have seen OpenAI change their license agreement, so the risk can change over time.
numpad0 3y ago
AIUI/IIUC/IANAL, Generative AI systems stack up tuned butterfly effects to create meaningful outputs. Which means, data is not merely stored inside a butterfly but spread across the system, and potentially every output from the butterfly cage is infringing everything, just almost negligibly. But no one can prove that or otherwise to be the case with current technology. I think it's just unfixable as far as fixing goes. The "best" way is to nuke all GPTs and DALL-Es and bury the technology, and the next best is to mark them all un-copyrightable and un-publishable as a compromise. This second option should be an all-around win that also encourages edge and on-prem deployments, IMO.
- bbor 3y ago
  The third option would be to change our copyright laws to reflect the new technology, rather than neutering the technology or restricting use of its outputs. Even if that’s the wrong way, it’s important to remember that we’re not inescapably trapped in the status quo

keiferski 3y ago

But how is that any different from creating an image from scratch? If I make a logo and use it for my business, but it turns out to be very similar to one already being used by another company, it’s the same situation. I think the main concern here is with the top 1,000 or so brands/copyrights which seem fairly straightforward to deal with using the method I described.

gchamonlive 3y ago
It's plagiarism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDp3cB5fHXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDp3cB5fHXQ). It's not the same situation. You can't possibly expect someone to be exposed to the entirety of the internet like ChatGPT is. It is a matter of scale. If you still think they are the same thing, the industrial revolution was about scale and had transformative impacts in the society.
- madamelic 3y ago
  ChatGPT is not intelligent. It's the user's responsibility to ensure they aren't infringing on copyright. If you are producing creatives for pay, you absolutely shouldn't be right-click saving images and using directly off the web whether you got it from DALL-E or a Google search. Who cares about plagarism? Plagarism is a made up boogeyman created by high school English teachers. If the work is sufficiently composed of your own thoughts, the fact you used someone else's structure for part of it is not a problem as long as it isn't your entire work or entirely derivative of one work. If I use a Coca-Cola bottle cap as structure in a sculpture, that doesn't mean I am infringing on Coca-Cola's copyright. I still had to mold my original work to work with it.
  - gchamonlive 3y ago
    > Who cares about plagarism? I linked a 4h video on that which goes into painstaking details, which you skipped. It is in the context of content creators but can be extrapolated to various areas. And about intelligence, what do you mean by intelligence? ChatGPT is certainly not thinking like a human, if that is what you mean, but it can reason really well when given directions. That taxes demo when gpt4 launched is certainly a demonstration of emergent cognition in the predictive system. So depending on how you see intelligence, ChatGPT certainly shows a lot of it, if we only let go of human constraints of cognition.

taberiand 3y ago

Why isn't the solution a strong disclaimer when the user generates images along the lines of "beware that the images produced may not comply with copyright laws in your country" etc etc? Any artist can privately draw a picture of Mario, what's so different about having an LLM generate that image?

RandomLensman 3y ago
There is a huge amount of copyrighted material in the world and these tools let you create a lot of content in a short time, that would imply an increased risk vs slower, more manual approaches. What I am also wondering is, if for some things copyrighted material could be somehow dominant in the output (beyond prompting more or less for it).
gchamonlive 3y ago
> what's so different about having an LLM generate that image? You don't have to pay 20 bucks a month for a private company to reproduce Mario manually at home for a start... you also can't reproduce Mario in many poses at an industrial scale solo. The list can go on, and we have seen OpenAI change their license agreement, so the risk can change over time.

numpad0 3y ago

AIUI/IIUC/IANAL, Generative AI systems stack up tuned butterfly effects to create meaningful outputs. Which means, data is not merely stored inside a butterfly but spread across the system, and potentially every output from the butterfly cage is infringing everything, just almost negligibly. But no one can prove that or otherwise to be the case with current technology. I think it's just unfixable as far as fixing goes. The "best" way is to nuke all GPTs and DALL-Es and bury the technology, and the next best is to mark them all un-copyrightable and un-publishable as a compromise. This second option should be an all-around win that also encourages edge and on-prem deployments, IMO.

bbor 3y ago
The third option would be to change our copyright laws to reflect the new technology, rather than neutering the technology or restricting use of its outputs. Even if that’s the wrong way, it’s important to remember that we’re not inescapably trapped in the status quo