8 ms·

This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now ha

• freeAgent 3y ago
  This doesn’t stop anyone from viewing or scraping the work, though, so in no way is it DRM. It just causes certain methods of computer interpretation of an image to interpret it in an odd way vs. human viewers. They can still learn from them.
  • avhon1 3y ago
    It absolutely is DRM, just a different form than media encryption. It's a purely-digital mechanism of enforcing rights.
    • freeAgent 3y ago
      It doesn’t enforce any rights. It modifies the actual image. Humans and computers still have equal, open access to it.
      • efitz 3y ago
        It’s designed to restrict the purposes for which the consumer can use the work. It is exactly like DRM in this way.
        • freeAgent 3y ago
          How does it stop you from using an image however you want?
        • freeAgent 3y ago
          To be clear, you can still train AI with these images. Nothing is stopping you.
          • johnnyanmac 3y ago
            To quote the source: >Nightshade's goal is not to break models, but to increase the cost of training on unlicensed data, such that licensing images from their creators becomes a viable alternative. Which feels similar to DRM. To discourage extraction of assets.
            • freeAgent 3y ago
              It also degrades the quality of the image for human consumers. It’s just a matter of what someone is willing to publish to “the public.”
              • johnnyanmac 3y ago
                Sure. Just like how video game drm impacts performance and watermarks on images degrades the image. Drm walks a tight line that inevitably makes the result worse than a drum-free solution, but also should not make the item completely unconsumable.
                • freeAgent 3y ago
                  Video game DRM completely prevents people without a license/key to unlock it from accessing the game at all.
      • renewiltord 3y ago
        That's true of almost all DRM, isn't it? Even for the most annoying form that is always-online DRM, everyone is provided the same access to the bytes that form a game. You and I have the same bytes of game. It's the purpose of some of those bytes that turns it into DRM.
        • freeAgent 3y ago
          No, it's not the same. The game is non-functional without the proper keys/authorization whereas images run through this algorithm are still images that anyone and any computer can view in the same manner without any authentication.
          • aspenmayer 3y ago
            An analogy that springs to mind is the difference between an access control mechanism such as a door with lock and key versus whatever magical contrivance that prevents entry to a dwelling by vampires uninvited.
            • freeAgent 3y ago
              That may be an ok analogy, but magic isn’t real. Maybe a better analogy would be to speak or write in a language that you know certain people don’t natively understand, and using lots of slang and idioms that don’t translate easily. Someone could still run it through Google Translate or whatever, but they won’t get a great understanding of what you actually said. They’d have to actually learn the language and the sorts of slang and idioms used.
              • aspenmayer 3y ago
                I agree that the analogy is strained. My goal was in elucidating the distinction between: the goals of artists and the developers of OP, versus the goals of AI engineers, and how it seems to me similar to the is/ought disctinction. In my original analogy, it’s generally considered lawful to have a lock on your door, or not to do so, and the issue of a lock or lack thereof is moot when one is invited to enter, just as it is lawful to enter a premises when invited or during exigent circumstances, such as breaching entry to render lifesaving aid by emergency services or firefighters. By that same token, no amount of locks or other barriers to entry will prevent ingress by a vampire once invited inside. To me, much of the ballyhoo about OP seems like much ado about big cats eating faces, like a person publicly decrying the rise in vampire attacks after inviting that same vampire inside for dinner. It’s a nonstarter. Copyright law is broken, because of the way that the law is written as much as the way that it’s enforced, and also broken because of the way that humans are. Ideas are not copyrightable, and while historically their implementations or representations were, going forward, neither implementations nor representations are likely to receive meaningful/effective protections from copyright itself, but only from legal enforcement of copyright law. After the recent expiry of Disney’s copyright on Steamboat Willie, the outpouring of praise, support, excitement, and original work from creators shows me that copyright law in its current incarnation doesn’t perform its stated goals of promoting the creation of arts and sciences, and so should be changed, and in the meantime ignored and actively disobeyed, as any unjust law ought to be, regardless of what the law is or does. In light of our obligation to disobey unjust laws, I applaud efforts like OP to advance the state of the art in computer science, while at the same time encouraging others working on AI to actively circumvent such efforts for the selfsame reason. I similarly encourage artists of all kinds to make art for art’s sake while monetizing however they see fit, without appealing to red herrings like the legality or lack thereof of end users appreciating their art and incorporating it into their own artistic output, however they may choose to do so. Like all art, code and its outputs is also First Amendment protected free speech.
• tsujamin 3y ago
  Being able to fairly monetise your creative work and put food on the table is a bit rivalrous though, don’t you think?
  • efitz 3y ago
    No, I disagree. There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations that says that you have a right to eat because you produced a creative work. The way societies work is that the members of the society contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with lots of excess production may at times choose to allow creative works to be monetized. Societies without much surplus are extremely unlikely to do so, eg a society with not enough food for everyone to eat in the middle of a famine is extremely unlikely to feed people who only create art; those people will have to contribute in some other way. I think it is a very modern western idea (less than a century old) that many artists can dedicate themselves solely to producing the art they want to produce. In all other times artists either had day jobs or worked on commission.
    • jrflowers 3y ago
      > There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations Can you list the principles across human civilizations?
      • juunpp 3y ago
        He can also presumably list the principles of the universe.
      • yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        That doesn't follow; you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set. What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim?
        • jrflowers 3y ago
          > you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set Of course you can. Anyone can say anything. Is “keeping the list of principles a secret” a principle like the rules of Fight Club? It is not unreasonable to ask for a link or summary of this immutable set of ground truths. > What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim? I could not answer this question without being able to double check. The only principle that comes to mind is the principle of ligma
• throwoutway 3y ago
  I don't see the parallel between this offensive tool and DRM. I could, say buy a perpetual license to an image from the artist, so that I can print it and put it on my wall, while it can simultaneously be poisonous to an AI system. I can even steal it and print it, while it is still poisonous to an AI system. The closest parallel I can think of is that humans can ingest chocolate but dogs should not.
  • efitz 3y ago
    A huge amount of DRM effort has been spent in the watermarking area, which is similar, but not exactly the same.
  • jdietrich 3y ago
    What you've described is the literal, dictionary definition of Digital Rights Management - a technology to restrict the use of a digital asset beyond the contractually-agreed terms. Copying is only one of many uses that the copyright-holder may wish to prevent. The regional lockout on a DVD had nothing to do with copy-protection, but it was still DRM.
  • gwbas1c 3y ago
    It's about the arm's race: DRM will always be cracked (with a sufficiently motivated customer.) AI poisoning will always be cracked (with a sufficiently motivated crawler.)
• xpe 3y ago
  Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here. > In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. - Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics) Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous or not is descriptive (what exists) not normative (what should be).
  • fastball 3y ago
    I think ideas being rivalrous is intrinsic, and therefore descriptive and normative.
    • xpe 3y ago
      I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?
      • fastball 3y ago
        Well first I meant "not rivalrous", whoops typo. But from there my point was that, in order to ask what "should be", you must ask what can be. I don't think there is a way for ideas to be non-rivalrous, period. So sure, saying ideas are not rivalrous is descriptive, but there isn't really another option.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
• xpe 3y ago
  > But the hard cold reality is that you cannot “own” an idea. The above comment is true about the properties of information, as explained via the lens of economics. [1] However, one ignores ownership as defined by various systems (including the rule of law and social conventions) at one's own peril. Such systems can also present a "hard cold reality" that can bankrupt or ostracize you. [1] Don't let the apparent confidence and technicality of the language of economists fool you. Economics isn't the only game in town. There are other ways to model and frame the world. [2] Dangling footnote warning. I think it is instructive to recognize that the field of economics has historically shown a kind of inferiority complex w.r.t. physics. Some economists ascribe to the level of rigor found in physics and that is well and good, but perhaps that effort should not be taken too seriously nor too far, since economics as a field operates at a different level. IMO, it would be wise for more in the field to eat a slice of humble pie. [3] Ibid. It is well-known that economists can be "hired guns" used to "prove" a wide variety of things, many of which are subjective. My point: you can hire an economist to shore up one's political proposals. Is the same true of physicists? Hopefully not to the same degree. Perhaps there are some cases of hucksterism, but nothing like the history of economists-wagging-the-dog! At some point, the electron tunnels or it does not.
  • meowkit 3y ago
    There are other games in town. But whatever game gives the most predictive power is going to win.
    • xpe 3y ago
      There is no need to frame this as "winning versus losing" regarding the many models that we draw upon. Even when talking about various kinds of scientific and engineering fields, predictive power isn't the only criteria, much less the best. Sometimes the simpler, less accurate models work well enough with less informational and computational cost. Even if we focus on prediction (as opposed to say statistical inference), often people want some kind of hybrid. Perhaps a blend of satisficing with limited information, scoped action spaces, and bounded computation; i.e. good enough given the information we have to make the decisions we can actuate with some computational budget.
• xpe 3y ago
  > ... you cannot “own” an idea. Let's talk about ownership in a broader sense. In practice, one cannot effectively own (retain possession of) something without some combination of physical capability or coercion (or threat of coercion). Meaning: maintaining ownership of anything (physical or otherwise) often depends on the rule of law.
  • thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in law: monopoly. You can't monopolize an idea. Copyright law is a prescription, not a description. Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly. The effectiveness of that demand depends on how well it can be enforced. Playing pretend during the age of the printing press may have been easy enough to coordinate, but it's practically impossible here in the digital age. If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.
    • xpe 3y ago
      Trying to make sense of the above comment is difficult. > Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly. Saying "lie" suggests willful deception. Perhaps you mean "socially constructed"? Combined with "playing pretend" makes it read a bit like a rant. > Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in law: monopoly. Ok, in law and economics, the core idea of monopoly has to do with dominant market power that crowds out the existence of others. But your other uses of "monopoly" don't match that. For example, you talk about ideas and "intellectual monopoly". What do you mean? It seems like some of your uses of "monopoly" are not about markets but instead are closer to the idea of retaining sole ownership. > If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of. It appears you've already presupposed how things would play out, but I'm not convinced. What is your metric of effectiveness? A scale is better than some arbitrary threshold. Have you compared copyright laws and enforcement of the U.S. versus others? How far would you go: would you say that i.e. society would be better off without copyright law? By what standard?
• gumballindie 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • IcyWindows 3y ago
    I don't think we have to compare the process when the end result (another's work being influenced by what they have previously seen) is the same.
    • gumballindie 3y ago
      Exactly, and the higher the degree of influence the closer to theft. Ai cultists obsessed with stealing property somehow think that’s ok.
• juunpp 3y ago
  You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?
  • theragra 3y ago
    If it were true, then we wouldn't have that great difference in opinions on this topic.
    • juunpp 3y ago
      That GP is utterly confused about copyright law is not an opinion.
      • sircastor 3y ago
        The United States Supreme Court rulings are supported literally by opinions of the justices.
  • sebzim4500 3y ago
    That may be the law, although we are probably years of legal proceedings away from finding out. It obviously is not "simple law".
  • rlt 3y ago
    It’s not obvious to me that using a copyrighted image to train a model is copyright infringement. It’s certainly not copyright infringement when used to train a human who may end up creating works that are influenced by (but not copies of) the original works. Now, if the original copyrighted work can be extracted or reproduced from the model, that’s obviously copyright infringement. OpenAI etc should ensure they don’t do that.
    • Andrex 3y ago
• chefandy 3y ago
  Not everybody equates automated scraping for training models and human experience. Just like any other “data wants to be free” type of discussion, the philosophical and ethical considerations are anything but cut-and-dried, and they’re far more consequential than the technical and economics-in-a-vacuum ones. The general public will quite possibly see things differently than the “oh well, artists— that’s the free market for ya, and you lost” crowd.
• kmeisthax 3y ago
  We're not trying to keep the AI from learning general ideas, we're trying to keep it from memorizing specific expressions[0]. There's a growing body of research to show that these models are doing a lot of memorizing, even if they're not regurgitating that data. For example, Google's little "ask GPT to repeat a word forever" trick, which will make GPT-4 spit out verbatim training data[1]. If there was a training process that let us pick a minimal sample of examples and turn it into a general purpose art generator or text generator, I think people would have been fine with that. But that's not what any of these models do. They were trained on shittons of creative expression, and there's statistical evidence that the models retain that expression, in a way that is fundamentally different from how humans remember, misremember, adapt, remix, and/or "play around with" other people's creativity. [0] You called these "embodiments", but I believe you're trying to invoke the idea/expression divide, so I'll run with that. [1] Or at least it did. OpenAI now filters out conversations that trip the bug.
• wredue 3y ago
  Kick ass. I now declare that I own Fortnite. Where’s my money, Epic?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]