4 ms·

I suspect that this is exactly what will happen; not just with code, but also prose and artwork. Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically traine

I suspect that this is exactly what will happen; not just with code, but also prose and artwork. Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Lots of money to be made...

devmor 2y ago
On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Try getting Mickey Mouse comics. That should be fun...
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    In isolation, no. But the produced works can be too close for fair use (as demonstrated with the Prince pieces by Andy Warhol), and passing it off as a piece from the original artist can open you up to forgery/fraud charges. To put another way, the motivations to produce art in another artist's style can still land the artist/buyer in legal trouble regardless of fair use.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Yes that is true, but I don't think the people who use style transfer are actually passing it off as the original, they just like it for the aesthetic value of their own images. In other words, no one using the Van Gogh LoRA is actually trying to forge the Starry Night.
      - falcolas 2y ago
        Given the value of an "authentic" painting of the Starry Night (or more realistically the value of something forged in, say, Samwise Didier's style) I can't agree with "no one". I have to imagine that it's likely quite popular to sell AI generated art that mimics or copies existing works.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Do you use AI art generators? Flaws are extremely easily found out, it is only good for a rough snapshot (without much fiddling and even then, artifacts remain). I can guarantee you it is definitely not popular to sell existing works made with AI, you are better off hiring an actual forger. In fact, your suggestion is even the first I've even heard of such an idea.
        8organicbits 2y ago
        I guess there's always a greater fool, but forging an oil painting using AI digital images seems pretty far fetched.
        Aeolun 2y ago
        You can paint over the printed image? Not that it’d look anything like the artist you are copying, but it’s a fun idea.
  - devmor 2y ago
    The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Under what morals do you consider it "abhorrent?" I bet got a straight answer from those I've asked about this as the counter arguments seem too easy to make.
      - devmor 2y ago
        It's just pure exploitation. You're using the product of someone's work to create a machine that takes away their work.
        struant 2y ago
        Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
        sensanaty 2y ago
        A man with a small canoe catching a few fish with a fishing rod for his dinner is very different to a commercial fishing vessel trawling through the ocean with a massive net to catch thousands of fish at once. The two are treated differently under the law, and have different rules that apply to them due to the difference in scale. Scale matters, and the scale that computers/these AIs operate under are absurd compared to a person doing it manually.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Why does scale matter in terms of AI? Just because a computer can do it at scale doesn't mean it should be treated similarly to your analogy. Rather than using an analogy, please tell me why it matters that computers can do something like AI at scale rather than individuals doing it.
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.
  - vkou 2y ago
    > I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, You aren't allowed to use photos featuring a non-consenting person to, for instance promote a product. You are allowed to use photos including a non-consenting person. There's a lot of complicated law, differing between different jurisdictions to cover this question, and to balance the needs of the public with commercial desires. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and there's no reason we should just default to bending over backwards for commercial interests. Laws exist to serve society, not the other way around.
    - CuriouslyC 2y ago
      I'm sure that the people who are being constantly victimized by paparazzi would like to know those rules that you just quoted, and have them be enforced.
      - vkou 2y ago
        If you had done a little research into this question, you'd realize that 1A use cases ('journalism') are treated by law quite differently than use of likeness for commercial intent. This is my whole point. There isn't a single, one-size-fits-all rule that a five year old can comprehend that describes any particular country's legal framework around the many, many different dimensions of tension between public and private interests on this incredibly broad question. And none of the existing frameworks fit the new use cases well, and we should probably have an open political debate about what we want to do going forward.
        CuriouslyC 2y ago
        I'll happily take your picture against your will and put it on the internet with the tag "vkou mad at photographer, news at 11"
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Perplexity AI.
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > Perplexity AI. How does this describe Perplexity AI more than any other LLM?
  - ADeerAppeared 2y ago
    I am referring to their service rather than their LLM in specific. Perplexity is in the business of using an LLM to paraphrase existing content, then serving that up as their own "work" in a way that directly harms the original content they took. It's not even a question of "Is AI training copyright infringement", they're just doing copyright infringement with AI. And it's horribly common already.
  - mcmcmc 2y ago
    They plagiarize and blame it on the third party service they use for web scraping https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/27/24187405/perplexity-ai-twitter-lie-plagiarism https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/27/24187405/perplexity-ai-tw...
epolanski 2y ago
I feel like what really matters is who has more money to throw in tribunals. Somehow I feel if it was "Adobe vs dev that claims his code was spit by copilot" it would not end the same.
crote 2y ago
I was mainly inspired by this section: > Specifically, the judge cited the study's observation that Copilot reportedly "rarely emits memorized code in benign situations, and most memorization occurs only when the model has been prompted with long code excerpts that are very similar to the training data." That almost sounds like it'd be fine to train an "art transformation model" which takes an image and transforms it, which for all the frames of a specific Disney movie just so happen to output the very next frame...
- saint_fiasco 2y ago
  That sounds like the opposite from the quote. The art transformation model you propose WOULD emit memorized art in benign situations, so in that judge's opinion it WOULD count as plagiarism.
- TomatoCo 2y ago
  With how modern video codecs use data from previous frames you could make a not-entirely-specious argument that we already have a tool that can do this and it's called ffmpeg.
- anticensor 2y ago
  > "art transformation model" There is a reason a famous AI model architecture is called transformer, it is pretty much optimised to be good at transforming artistic and intellectual works.

devmor 2y ago

On the matter of artwork there's no need for suspicion - it is and has been happening for a while now. There are entire online databases dedicated to providing non-consenting artist's "styles" as downloadable model parameters by name.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Try getting Mickey Mouse comics. That should be fun...
satvikpendem 2y ago
Style is not copyrightable so I see nothing wrong with making essentially a robot that can paint in the style of someone else.
- falcolas 2y ago
  In isolation, no. But the produced works can be too close for fair use (as demonstrated with the Prince pieces by Andy Warhol), and passing it off as a piece from the original artist can open you up to forgery/fraud charges. To put another way, the motivations to produce art in another artist's style can still land the artist/buyer in legal trouble regardless of fair use.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Yes that is true, but I don't think the people who use style transfer are actually passing it off as the original, they just like it for the aesthetic value of their own images. In other words, no one using the Van Gogh LoRA is actually trying to forge the Starry Night.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      Given the value of an "authentic" painting of the Starry Night (or more realistically the value of something forged in, say, Samwise Didier's style) I can't agree with "no one". I have to imagine that it's likely quite popular to sell AI generated art that mimics or copies existing works.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Do you use AI art generators? Flaws are extremely easily found out, it is only good for a rough snapshot (without much fiddling and even then, artifacts remain). I can guarantee you it is definitely not popular to sell existing works made with AI, you are better off hiring an actual forger. In fact, your suggestion is even the first I've even heard of such an idea.
      - 8organicbits 2y ago
        I guess there's always a greater fool, but forging an oil painting using AI digital images seems pretty far fetched.
        Aeolun 2y ago
        You can paint over the printed image? Not that it’d look anything like the artist you are copying, but it’s a fun idea.
- devmor 2y ago
  The legality of using someone’s copyrighted work to train a model to reproduce it without their consent is still under debate - but the morality of the act at least, is not related to its legality - be it positively or negatively; and I personally consider it abhorrent.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Under what morals do you consider it "abhorrent?" I bet got a straight answer from those I've asked about this as the counter arguments seem too easy to make.
    - devmor 2y ago
      It's just pure exploitation. You're using the product of someone's work to create a machine that takes away their work.
      - struant 2y ago
        Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
        sensanaty 2y ago
        A man with a small canoe catching a few fish with a fishing rod for his dinner is very different to a commercial fishing vessel trawling through the ocean with a massive net to catch thousands of fish at once. The two are treated differently under the law, and have different rules that apply to them due to the difference in scale. Scale matters, and the scale that computers/these AIs operate under are absurd compared to a person doing it manually.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        Why does scale matter in terms of AI? Just because a computer can do it at scale doesn't mean it should be treated similarly to your analogy. Rather than using an analogy, please tell me why it matters that computers can do something like AI at scale rather than individuals doing it.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, I'd like to move through society invisibly and only show myself when it benefitted me. Unfortunately, the only answer is to stay inside if I don't want people to see me.
- vkou 2y ago
  > I sure wish I could non-consent to people observing me in the world, You aren't allowed to use photos featuring a non-consenting person to, for instance promote a product. You are allowed to use photos including a non-consenting person. There's a lot of complicated law, differing between different jurisdictions to cover this question, and to balance the needs of the public with commercial desires. It's not as simple as you make it sound, and there's no reason we should just default to bending over backwards for commercial interests. Laws exist to serve society, not the other way around.
  - CuriouslyC 2y ago
    I'm sure that the people who are being constantly victimized by paparazzi would like to know those rules that you just quoted, and have them be enforced.
    - vkou 2y ago
      If you had done a little research into this question, you'd realize that 1A use cases ('journalism') are treated by law quite differently than use of likeness for commercial intent. This is my whole point. There isn't a single, one-size-fits-all rule that a five year old can comprehend that describes any particular country's legal framework around the many, many different dimensions of tension between public and private interests on this incredibly broad question. And none of the existing frameworks fit the new use cases well, and we should probably have an open political debate about what we want to do going forward.
      - CuriouslyC 2y ago
        I'll happily take your picture against your will and put it on the internet with the tag "vkou mad at photographer, news at 11"

ADeerAppeared 2y ago

> Someone is likely to design an LLM that is specifically trained to do exactly that. Perplexity AI.

chimeracoder 2y ago
> Perplexity AI. How does this describe Perplexity AI more than any other LLM?
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  I am referring to their service rather than their LLM in specific. Perplexity is in the business of using an LLM to paraphrase existing content, then serving that up as their own "work" in a way that directly harms the original content they took. It's not even a question of "Is AI training copyright infringement", they're just doing copyright infringement with AI. And it's horribly common already.
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  They plagiarize and blame it on the third party service they use for web scraping https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/27/24187405/perplexity-ai-twitter-lie-plagiarism https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/27/24187405/perplexity-ai-tw...

epolanski 2y ago

I feel like what really matters is who has more money to throw in tribunals. Somehow I feel if it was "Adobe vs dev that claims his code was spit by copilot" it would not end the same.

crote 2y ago

I was mainly inspired by this section: > Specifically, the judge cited the study's observation that Copilot reportedly "rarely emits memorized code in benign situations, and most memorization occurs only when the model has been prompted with long code excerpts that are very similar to the training data." That almost sounds like it'd be fine to train an "art transformation model" which takes an image and transforms it, which for all the frames of a specific Disney movie just so happen to output the very next frame...

saint_fiasco 2y ago
That sounds like the opposite from the quote. The art transformation model you propose WOULD emit memorized art in benign situations, so in that judge's opinion it WOULD count as plagiarism.
TomatoCo 2y ago
With how modern video codecs use data from previous frames you could make a not-entirely-specious argument that we already have a tool that can do this and it's called ffmpeg.
anticensor 2y ago
> "art transformation model" There is a reason a famous AI model architecture is called transformer, it is pretty much optimised to be good at transforming artistic and intellectual works.