3 ms·

> the “majority” usage is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You've shifted the goalposts so much that I genuinely don't know what you're arguing for an

> the “majority” usage is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You've shifted the goalposts so much that I genuinely don't know what you're arguing for anymore. Are you saying "some people use <technology> for <bad>, therefore <technology> is <bad>"? Because then we're back to banning knives, banning cars, banning internet, banning everything basically. Typically in these discussions it matters what the intended or majority use case for a technology is. If it doesn't matter, then what is it that you're arguing for exactly? I fully agree with you that some people use image generators to generate new images in specific artists' styles and I agree that there's some moral issues there.

dahart 3y ago
I’ve been suspecting for the entire thread that you’re really not understanding nor listening to my argument, and that might indeed make it seem like the goalposts are moving. I know you said you think you understand, but my points haven’t changed. Banning things is a straw man on your part and not something I ever discussed in this thread. > it matters what the intended or majority use case for a technology is. Okay, speaking of moving goal posts, you previously made unverifiable claims about what the majority type of prompt is, in order to contradict my points about specific art prompts being common. Until now, our discussion was not about the majority use case for the technology. The prompts and the tech are not the same things. The majority use case of AI technology has nothing to do with whether a user is seeking generic photographs or art in a specific style. The intended use case of Stable Diffusion, for example, is to generate images from a text description. All text prompts and all image outputs fit the stated majority use case of Stable Diffusion. The intent of it has - deliberately - never included any statements on what the prompt contains nor what the output looks like, and half of the examples on Stable Diffusion’s home page are art anyway. You claim accidental infringement is an unintended failure mode, but it’s a surprise to nobody that a sophisticated copy machine sometimes copies things. Plus they had to copy stuff in order to train it, which may well be illegal even before anyone starts inferencing. It’s fundamentally a copy machine they built, and they intended for it to copy things, so unless they design it to guarantee remixes of many, hoping it won’t copy enough of any single source to violate copyright is wishful thinking and nothing more. The copyright office may decide to view that as willful ignorance in violation of the law. Accidents and intentional infringements both are bound to happen, and the machine is effectively distributing copyrighted work and could be violating existing laws. So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. There might be legal issues with AI, unless the people building them curate legal training sets. You’ve also failed to engage with any points about OpenAI requesting copyright exemption, which I’ve mentioned multiple times and was my first point. Their actions have already demonstrated what I’m saying here, that they know the potential copyright problems with their AI go far beyond overfitting accidents. We haven’t even discussed ChatGPT, but it’s pretty obvious that they would like to have the right to disseminate information and excerpts from copyrighted sources. They want it to overfit on some things, otherwise they can’t improve it’s ability to tell the truth and not hallicinate false information.
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  > So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. You made many points in this thread, and I didn't argue all of them. I don't know why you want me to comment on this specific point? Fine. I agree with you that training AI on copyrighted material _might_ be illegal. In fact, it probably will be declared illegal _somewhere_ (and probably will be declared legal somewhere else). I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have much to contribute to this particular point, not sure why you expect me to comment on it? > You’ve also failed to engage with any points about OpenAI requesting copyright exemption, which I’ve mentioned multiple times and was my first point. Their actions have already demonstrated what I’m saying here, that they know the potential copyright problems with their AI go far beyond overfitting accidents. I agree with this as well. I didn't comment on it, because it was tangential to the point that we were arguing about, and I have nothing of substance to contribute to OpenAI's copyright exemption request. > We haven’t even discussed ChatGPT, but it’s pretty obvious that they would like to have the right to disseminate information and excerpts from copyrighted sources. They want it to overfit on some things, otherwise they can’t improve it’s ability to tell the truth and not hallicinate false information. That also makes sense. > You claim accidental infringement is an unintended failure mode, but it’s a surprise to nobody that a sophisticated copy machine sometimes copies things. Sure. I wouldn't call it a copy machine, but yes, nobody is surprised that the machine _sometimes_ copies things. > I’ve been suspecting for the entire thread that you’re really not understanding nor listening to my argument I still don't understand what the "argument" is. You've made several different statements which I agree with. And then you made one outlandishly incorrect statement, which I disagreed with, and that was the point I argued with you. What you're doing right now is muddying the waters with a thousand unrelated arguments, and I don't know why you're doing that or what you're hoping to achieve. If you can articulate what you believe it is that we disagree on, please go ahead. If you don't know what the disagreement is, then maybe there's no point continuing this conversation further.

dahart 3y ago

I’ve been suspecting for the entire thread that you’re really not understanding nor listening to my argument, and that might indeed make it seem like the goalposts are moving. I know you said you think you understand, but my points haven’t changed. Banning things is a straw man on your part and not something I ever discussed in this thread. > it matters what the intended or majority use case for a technology is. Okay, speaking of moving goal posts, you previously made unverifiable claims about what the majority type of prompt is, in order to contradict my points about specific art prompts being common. Until now, our discussion was not about the majority use case for the technology. The prompts and the tech are not the same things. The majority use case of AI technology has nothing to do with whether a user is seeking generic photographs or art in a specific style. The intended use case of Stable Diffusion, for example, is to generate images from a text description. All text prompts and all image outputs fit the stated majority use case of Stable Diffusion. The intent of it has - deliberately - never included any statements on what the prompt contains nor what the output looks like, and half of the examples on Stable Diffusion’s home page are art anyway. You claim accidental infringement is an unintended failure mode, but it’s a surprise to nobody that a sophisticated copy machine sometimes copies things. Plus they had to copy stuff in order to train it, which may well be illegal even before anyone starts inferencing. It’s fundamentally a copy machine they built, and they intended for it to copy things, so unless they design it to guarantee remixes of many, hoping it won’t copy enough of any single source to violate copyright is wishful thinking and nothing more. The copyright office may decide to view that as willful ignorance in violation of the law. Accidents and intentional infringements both are bound to happen, and the machine is effectively distributing copyrighted work and could be violating existing laws. So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. There might be legal issues with AI, unless the people building them curate legal training sets. You’ve also failed to engage with any points about OpenAI requesting copyright exemption, which I’ve mentioned multiple times and was my first point. Their actions have already demonstrated what I’m saying here, that they know the potential copyright problems with their AI go far beyond overfitting accidents. We haven’t even discussed ChatGPT, but it’s pretty obvious that they would like to have the right to disseminate information and excerpts from copyrighted sources. They want it to overfit on some things, otherwise they can’t improve it’s ability to tell the truth and not hallicinate false information.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
> So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. You made many points in this thread, and I didn't argue all of them. I don't know why you want me to comment on this specific point? Fine. I agree with you that training AI on copyrighted material _might_ be illegal. In fact, it probably will be declared illegal _somewhere_ (and probably will be declared legal somewhere else). I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have much to contribute to this particular point, not sure why you expect me to comment on it? > You’ve also failed to engage with any points about OpenAI requesting copyright exemption, which I’ve mentioned multiple times and was my first point. Their actions have already demonstrated what I’m saying here, that they know the potential copyright problems with their AI go far beyond overfitting accidents. I agree with this as well. I didn't comment on it, because it was tangential to the point that we were arguing about, and I have nothing of substance to contribute to OpenAI's copyright exemption request. > We haven’t even discussed ChatGPT, but it’s pretty obvious that they would like to have the right to disseminate information and excerpts from copyrighted sources. They want it to overfit on some things, otherwise they can’t improve it’s ability to tell the truth and not hallicinate false information. That also makes sense. > You claim accidental infringement is an unintended failure mode, but it’s a surprise to nobody that a sophisticated copy machine sometimes copies things. Sure. I wouldn't call it a copy machine, but yes, nobody is surprised that the machine _sometimes_ copies things. > I’ve been suspecting for the entire thread that you’re really not understanding nor listening to my argument I still don't understand what the "argument" is. You've made several different statements which I agree with. And then you made one outlandishly incorrect statement, which I disagreed with, and that was the point I argued with you. What you're doing right now is muddying the waters with a thousand unrelated arguments, and I don't know why you're doing that or what you're hoping to achieve. If you can articulate what you believe it is that we disagree on, please go ahead. If you don't know what the disagreement is, then maybe there's no point continuing this conversation further.