2 ms·
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the paywalling of more and more sites came as GDPR and other data privacy regulations started to pop up Data protection
by Ukv 3y ago
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the paywalling of more and more sites came as GDPR and other data privacy regulations started to pop up
Data protection regulations being the cause of paywalls seems a different theory than what you were previously suggesting.
> all those captchas I'm being hit with these days tells me otherwise. Maybe it is possible, but perhaps too expensive.
Captchas are generally to prevent spambots. CCBot/GPTBot crawlers identify themselves by their user-agent (so the server can just choose not to serve the content) and also respect robots.txt.
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.13188.pdf (PDF warning). Apparently somewhere in the memory there is those raw assets being stored for "reference".
Stable Diffusion is ~4GB and trained on 5 billion images - for the most part it's not plausible for it to have stored the "raw assets". There is a real issue of overfitting on a subset of content that the model saw many times during training such that it was able to memorize details, but the model isn't retrieving the source material from some server to reference (that's known as retrieval augmented generation, which isn't used by default SD/GPT).
Would also keep in mind that for papers like this, where they're generating hundreds of millions of images and digging into CLIP embeddings to construct prompts that intentionally recreate images, that there's some degree of similarity you'd expect just by the conditioning given, the large number of comparisons being automatically made, and coincidence - even had the model not seen the image in question.
> Youtube screws its creators over backwards to prevent litigation over a very similar concept.
Youtube makes the video available to the public. The Google Books analogy properly preserves the aspect that full works are stored but only small portions made available.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>CCBot/GPTBot crawlers identify themselves by their user-agent (so the server can just choose not to serve the content) and also respect robots.txt. Sure. I guess we'll see how that holds up in the lawsuit over the coming years. > for the most part it's not plausible for it to have stored the "raw assets" I wasn't talking as literal pngs on a server. I'm sure a company backed by Microsoft has much more clever ways to store such data. My main point was that it seems possible to reproduce the asset so enough of it is kept to perform such operations. >Would also keep in mind that for papers like this, where they're generating hundreds of millions of images and digging into CLIP embeddings to construct prompts that intentionally recreate images, that there's some degree of similarity you'd expect just by the conditioning given, the large number of comparisons being automatically made, and coincidence - even had the model not seen the image in question. coincidence, perhaps. I can't say and tracing isn't technically illegal either (although extremely faux pas for artists doing anything more than learning how to draw). But that is definitely where the metaphor of human motor skills and machine reproduction breaks down. Humans can more easily be cast off as coincidence based on context (which can be easy or hard to deduce. E. G. Did artist B follow artist A on Twitter? How long were they active? Are they known to have a similar style?) bots' context is closed up as company IP. That alone will give it a lot more scrutiny. Scrutiny that can potentiallybe subpeona's, so again: TBD. >Youtube makes the video available to the public. The Google Books analogy properly preserves the aspect that full works are stored but only small portions made available. I don't really know why you're so fixated on the Google books metaphor. Google books is also an actual bookstore as well as some place for users to upload their library. I can upload pirated content for private use becsuse Google isn't scanning all its customers 24/7. It's technically not legal but also hard to enforce on my private library of 1 that I share with no one. I'd run into more issues if I tried to sell it and someone caught me. You can DMCA a book from Google just as easily as a YouTube video. There's simply less money in the game to DMCA troll literature (and for many books of interest to HN, the primary customer isn't individuals but institutions and education).
- Ukv 3y ago> I don't really know why you're so fixated on the Google books metaphor. It's an example we have a court ruling for and is a more literal case of internally storing a huge number of copyrighted works, without permission of the copyright holders, then allowing users to query for snippets. > Google books is also an actual bookstore as well as some place for users to upload their library. I can upload pirated content for private use becsuse Google isn't scanning all its customers 24/7. Google Books is a search tool for millions of books that Google have scanned and OCR'd. As far as I'm aware it doesn't itself sell books and I don't believe there's a way for regular users to upload content. Are you thinking of books on Google Play? > It's technically not legal [...] You can DMCA a book from Google just as easily as a YouTube video Google Books has been found to be legal due to Fair Use. You could send a DMCA takedown notice, but they wouldn't have to comply with it.