3 ms·
>How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It's completely unprecedented. We allowed scraping images and text en masse when search engines used
by RIMR 2y ago
>How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling.
It's completely unprecedented.
We allowed scraping images and text en masse when search engines used the data to let us find stuff.
We allow copying of style, and don't allow writing styles and aesthetics to be copyrighted or trademarked.
Then AI shows up, and people change lanes because they don't like the results.
One of the things that made me tilt towards the side of fair use was a breakdown of the Stable Diffusion model. The SD2.1 base model was trained on 5.85 billion images, all normalized to 512x512 BMP. That's 1MB per images, for a total of 5.85PB of BMP files. The resulting model is only 5.2GB. That's more than 99.999999% data loss from the source data to the trained set.
For every 1MB BMP file in the training dataset, less than 1byte makes it into the model.
I find it extremely difficult to call this redistribution of copyrighted data. It falls cleanly into fair use.
- ang_cire 2y agoExcept it's not just about redistribution of copyrighted data, it's about usage and obtainment. We don't get to obtain and use copyrighted content without permission, but they do? Hell no. Their arguments against this amounts to "we're not using it like they intend it to be used, so it's fine if we obtain it illegally", and that's a bs standard, totally divorced from any legal reality. Fair Use covers certain transformative uses, certainly, but it doesn't cover illegal obtaining of the content. You can't pirate a book just because you want to use it transformatively (which is exactly what they've done), and that argument would never hold up for us as individuals, so we sure as hell shouldn't let tech companies get a special carve-out for it.