9 ms·
OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
- passwordoops 2y agoGive it a month and they should have no problem deploying their inevitable AGI to deliver the opt-out system, right? /S
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dgfitz 2y agoEventually the headline will be the first 2 words. The tech is neat, there is value in a sense, LLMs are a fun tech. They are not going to invent AGI with LLMs.
- wilg 2y agowho cares if they do it with LLMs or not? how do you define agi?
- dgfitz 2y ago… very carefully?
- goatlover 2y agoWhatever makes Open AI enough money?
- mschuster91 2y ago> how do you define agi? An AI that has enough sense of self-awareness to not hallucinate and to recognize the borders of its knowledge on its own. That is fundamentally impossible to do with LLMs because in the end, they are all next-token predictors while humans are capable of a much more complex model of storing and associating information and context, and most importantly, develop "mental models" from that information and context. And anyway, there are other tasks than text generation. Take autonomous driving for example - a driver of a car sees a person attempting to cross a street in front of them. A human can decide to slam the brake or the gas depending on the context - is the person crossing the car some old granny on a walker or a soccer player? Or a human sees a ball being kicked into the air on the sidewalk behind some cars, with no humans visible. The human can infer "whoops, there might be children playing here, better slow down and be prepared for a child to suddenly step out onto the street from between the cars", but an object detection/classification lacks that ability to even recognize the ball as being a potentially relevant piece of context.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> An AI that has enough sense of self-awareness to not hallucinate It's not entirely clear that this is meaningful. Humans engage in confabulation, too.
- onemoresoop 2y agoHumans engage in confabulation but they’re mostly aware of it. In some mental disorders they may not be aware; though statistically that is not too significant and no, we normally don’t confabulate as much as the current crop of AI aka LLMs. As a tool LLMs are fantastic and am glad to look at them as solely as powerful tools. AGI is not here yet and maybe that’s a good thing. Who would want some kind of artificial intelligence that is capable of understanding us, that is capable of using psychological tricks on people, that could have different goals than us and so on.
- wilg 2y agohttps://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/confabulation#vs-lying https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/confabulation#vs-l... > Confabulators are usually unaware they are providing false information. They often display genuine surprise or confusion when evidence of facts contradicts their statements. This is similar to LLMs actually. But it also seems like various "System 2" things like chain of thought could compensate for this issue in the LLM (and that possibly that is similar to how the brain works).
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> Humans engage in confabulation but they’re mostly aware of it. I'm not sure this is the case at all. Some awareness of this doesn't imply full awareness. In my experience, most people are unaware of how incoherent their worldviews are, so the distinction between normative and confabulatory behavior isn't clear.
- wilg 2y agoagain i don't care whether its done with an LLM or not. there's no reason to think openai will only build LLMs. recognizing borders of its knowledge is a reasonable thing to include in an agi definition i suppose, but does not seem intractable. for the second one, ai drivers like tesla's current version is already skipping the object detection/classification and instead uses deep learning on the entire video frame and could absolutely use the ball or any other context to change behavior, even without the particular internal monologue describe there.
- portaouflop 2y agoWe have this discussion every minute -.-
- lm28469 2y agoI care because it's brought to us by same same deranged brains who promised self driving cars "in two years" every year since 2012, and a fully autonomous mars city "by 2030". We're all wasting time and resources on what basically amounts to alchemy while we could tackle real problems. Tech solutionists keep making promises for the next 5-10-20 years and never deliver, AI, electric planes, clean fuel, autonomous cars, the meta verse, brain implents. You'd expect the internet would have made people smarter but we fall for the same snake oil as 100 years ago, en masse this time
- wilg 2y agoi mean there’s progress on all those things and that’s good and there’s no downside really?
- hnburnsy 2y agoMaybe the task to implement it was scheduled by ChatGPT... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716744
- Bilal_io 2y agoSorry the task failed for unknown reasons.
- toddmorey 2y agoNo way OpenAI will ever “good citizen” this. Tools to opt out of training sets will only come if they are legally compelled. Governments will have to make respecting some sort of training preference header on public content mandatory I think. The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone excluding content from their training data.
- echelon 2y agoInsofar as data for diffusion / image / video models are concerned, the rise of synthetic data and data efficiency will mean that none of this really matters anyway. We were just in the bootstrapping phase. You can bolt on new functional modules and train them with very limited data you acquire from Unreal Engine or in the field.
- toddmorey 2y agoI don’t entirely agree. For example, it’s a very popular scheme on Etsy right now to use LLMs to generate posters in the style of popular artists. Any artist should be able to say hey I don’t want my works to be part of your training set to power derivative generations. And I think it should even apply retroactively so that they have to retrain their models that are already generating works from training data consumed without permission. Of course, OpenAI would fight that tooth & nail but they put themselves in this position with a clear “take first ask permission later” mentality.
- llm_trw 2y agoShould any artist be able to tell another artist: hey don't copy my work when you're learning, I don't want competition? It seems like they are deeply upset someone has figured out a way for a machine to do what artists have been doing since time immemorial.
- JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
- oraphalous 2y agoI don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Eventually - for how many of these AI companies would a person have to track down their opt-out processes just to protect their work from AI? That's crazy. OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work. How they are getting away with this is beyond me.
- paulcole 2y ago> OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work This is the problem of thinking that everyone “has” to do something. I assure you that I (and you) can use someone else’s work without asking for permission. Will there be consequences? Perhaps. Is the risk of the consequences enough to get me to ask for permission? Perhaps. Am I a nice enough guy to feel like I should do the right thing and ask for permission? Perhaps. Is everyone like me? No. > How they are getting away with this is beyond me. Is it really beyond you? I think it’s pretty clear. They’re powerful enough that the political will to hold them accountable is nonexistent.
- farrarstan 2y ago[dead]
- CamperBob2 2y agoI don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Because the work being done, from the point of view of people who believe they are on the verge of creating AGI, is arguably more important than copyright. Less controversially: if the courts determine that training an ML model is not fair use, then anyone who respects copyright law will end up with an uncompetitive model. As will anyone operating in a country where the laws force them to do so. So don't expect the large players to walk away without putting up a massive fight.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoOf note here is the reason it's "important" is it will make a shit-ton of money.
- dadbod 2y agoThe tool was called "Media Manager" LMFAO. A name so uninspired it perfectly reflected how little they cared.
- grajaganDev 2y agoLOL - it sounds like something from 90's era Microsoft.
- 9283409232 2y agoPeople need to understand these companies are not good actors and will not let you opt out unless forced. I have a 20 dollar bet with a friend that Trump's admin will get training data classified as fair use and the whole issue will be done away with anyway
- dylan604 2y agoApparently, Trump has a lot of training data stored in a bathroom, so there's that
- protocolture 2y agoIts clearly fair use regardless of what trump does.
- lm28469 2y agoI don't think anything is clear when it comes to laws... Even 10 words sentences from the constitution have been debated since they exist.
- 9283409232 2y agoIt isn't clearly anything since there are dozens of lawsuits about it going on right now.
- protocolture 2y agoOther than the bloke who tried to make his LLM the author, I havent seen any lawsuits uphold your point of view. There was a great article posted here last year rounding up all the various courts who upheld ownership for prompters of LLM output, including China (Possibly twice) If recombining data from images in a way that theres not a single trace of any original violates fair use, then fair use ceases to exist. There is hardly a fairer use. Any existing fair use outcome uses actual recognizable elements of the original work. There isn't really 2 directions on this. The damage that success for the anti ai folk would have against IP law is tremendous.
- thrance 2y agoAnother one of these daily reminders that we live in a two-tiered justice system, everything you ever created is fair game to them, but don't you dare use a leak of their weights lest you want to be thrown in jail.
- jsheard 2y agoAccording to OpenAI you're not even allowed to use GPT output to train a competing model, so they believe that AI models are the only thing worthy of protection from being trained on. Llama used to have a similar clause, which was partially walked back to "you must credit us if you train on Llama output" in later versions, but that's still a double standard since they don't credit anything that Llama was trained on. For obvious reasons now we know that Zuck personally greenlit feeding it pirated books.
- allsummer 2y agoOne should be able to opt-out for training AI, but then testing AI should also become impossible. Else you are freeloading just as much as you accuse the AI companies of.
- Terr_ 2y ago"By continuing, you agree that using any content from this site in training Generative AI grants the site-owner a perpetual, irrevocable, and royalty-free license to use and re-license any and all output created by that Generative AI system, including but not limited to derivative works based on that output." Just just a GPL-esque idea I've been musing lately [0], I'd appreciate any feedback from actual IP lawyers. The idea is to add a poison-pill, and if a company "steals" your content for their own profit, you can strike back by making it very hard for them to actually monetize the results. Since it's a kind of contract, it doesn't rely on how much work seems to be surfacing in a particular output. So supposing ArtTheft Inc. snarfs up Jane Doe's paintings from her blog, she--or any similar victim--can declare that they grant the world an almost-public license to anything ArtTheft Inc. has made based on that model. If this happens ArtTheft Inc. could still make some money selling physical prints, but anyone else could undercut them with free or cheaper copies. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42582615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42582615
- amiantos 2y agoThat's cute, I'm going to put that at the start of any creative work I make so that anyone who sees it owes me a license to everything they ever made afterward because a nugget of their life experience legally belongs to me now and all their creative works are now tainted by that.
- Terr_ 2y agoI didn't expect you to admit you were a computer program so readily. :p Do you have any more-substantive critique? It sounds like you're trying to argue that the terms will be found to be unconscionable. However it's not asking for any payment, or even any effort-taking action: it's just saying that the site-owner provides content on the condition that if you incorporate that content into a generative product, the site-owner gets to use the results too. Clearly the people hoovering up training-data believe my work has some economic value to themselves, or they wouldn't be running a giant web crawler hitting every page of the blog--it's not as if they're arriving out of boredom, or because they followed some opaque hyperlink in curiosity.
- 2y ago
- devit 2y agoAren't lawsuits the proper way to address this? Seems like there's an argument that model weights are a derivative work of the training data, at least if the model is capable of producing output that would be ruled to be such a derivative work given minimal prompting. Although it may not work with photography since the model might just almost exclusively learn how the object of the photo looks in general and how photos work in general, rather than memorizing anything about specific photos.
- fenomas 2y agoI think that argument falls down though, because a derivative work is an expressive work in its own right, and model weights aren't. It would seem more coherent to argue that a model output could be a derivative work, though it would need to include a significant portion of some given source. But even then, since the copyright office's position is that they're not copyrightable, I'm not sure they could qualify.
- devit 2y agoModel weights, if they can reproduce something like the original, are just a form of lossy compression (or even lossless for text), where the LLM answering the prompt is a more powerful version of asking software to retrieve a specific file from a Zip archive (or a webserver answering an HTTP query) of such lossy compressed data. So if model weights don't infringe, that would also imply that saving an image as a JPG or a video using AV-1 doesn't infringe, which would obviously effectively implies that copyright doesn't apply to images or videos on the web, which is not current law/policy, so I think that reasoning cannot possibly work.
- fenomas 2y agoThat comparison would only make sense if compressed images were considered derivative works. They're not - copyright doesn't protect bytes on a disk, it protects creative expressions. Lossy compression doesn't affect the creative expression, so in copyright terms a compressed JPG is just a copy, and is covered exactly like the original image. In contrast a derivative work is one creative expression that contains elements of another - like when you take an image and add commentary, or draw your own addition onto it, etc. And I'm pointing out that a trained model is not that - it's not itself a copyrightable expressive work. (We could think of it as a kind of algorithm for generating works, but algorithms aren't copyrightable.)
- DidYaWipe 2y agoShocking news about the company that fraudulently left "open" in its name after ripping off donors. I think the headline is too generous here. More accurate would be "OpenAI neglects to deliver opt-out system..."
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoSorry, who did they rip off? All their investors stand to profit handsomely (if they live).
- hansvm 2y agoThey ripped off everyone they lied to. The took money under the premise that they'd put humanity first as this AI transition happened (both in safety and in knowledge sharing), and they instead used that money to build a moat that'll make it harder for anyone else to accomplish those same goals. Investors in the original vision would have been better off had they not contributed any funds, and the monetary profit they're receiving in exchange won't be enough to offset those damages (in the sense that it's not enough to fund somebody attempting to execute the same mission now that OpenAI exists -- at least not with the same chance of success they anticipated when OpenAI was younger).
- DidYaWipe 2y agoAre you saying that donors to their "non-profit" received shares in the now-for-profit enterprise? And if so, do you have a citation for that?
- DidYaWipe 2y ago<crickets>
- griomnib 2y agoI think it’s safe to assume anything Sam A says is an outright lie by now.
- maeil 2y agoIt's depressing that this understanding hasn't been the status quo for years now. It's not like this is his first gig, it's been publicly verifiable what kind of person he is for ages, long before GPT became famous. You don't need to be part of some insider Silicon Valley cabal to find out.
- hashxyz 2y agoCan you back that up with anything? I’ve gotten this as a vague sense, but it seems hard to find much actual background about how he manages to continuously fail upward.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- testfrequency 2y agoProbably means nothing, but all the people I know who went to OpenAI and are still there are all the people who made very poor business decisions and were hated at multiple companies I worked for. High doubt any of them will be good stewards of anything but selfishness. As for the others, they were all smart, passionate, dedicated folks who knew Sam was a complete narcissist and left to start their own AI startups. (sorry mods, I’m upset and I’m annoyed OpenAI is getting away with murder of society in plain view)
- Der_Einzige 2y agoGood. Everyone gets big mad when someone with money acts like Aaron Swartz did. The only bad thing about OpenAI is that they're not actually open sourcing or open accessing their stuff. Mistral or Llama "training on pirated material" is literally a feature, not a bug and the tears from all the artists and others who get mad are delicious. These same artists would profess literal radical marxism but become capitalist luddite copyright trolls the moment that the means of intellectual production became democratized against their will. If you posted something on the internet, I can and will put it into ipadapter and take your style and use it for my own interests. You cannot stop me except by not posting it where I can access it. That is the burden of posting anything on the public internet. You opt out by not doing it.
- amiantos 2y agoIt is comical to me how fast the anti-RIAA internet turned into a bunch of copyright maximalists who expect organizations like the RIAA to protect them in some way. In actuality, if someone manages to weaponize copyright against AI, it will only successfully be used by massive rights holders to extract payouts from AI companies and none of the money will be given to any of the creatives, and creatives will naturally still not be very happy about it. Spotify 1.0 is right holders streaming your content and paying you fractions of pennies for it, "Spotify 2.0" will be them licensing your content to AI companies and paying you a fraction of a fraction of a penny just once.
- tehjoker 2y agoSuch a weird argument. A company doing the same thing as Aaron Swartz is doing it for personal gain, not for our collective benefit.
- econ 2y agoIn my mental imagery this is a situation that any advancing civilization in the universe should eventually run into. There will be all kinds of materials from the laborious and expensive to the effortless and "I was the first" or some other entitlement. It all boils down to having or not having such automatons. I'm sure there have been plenty who, like us with our books, have successfully denied progress. I'm also sure there have been plenty where it was completely obvious to upload the entire database of ET knowledge. It is equally obvious what the later gained and the former lost in the process. We, with our books, have successfully prevented people from educating themselves with amazing implications. Now the challenge is to create equally impotent machines! You have no further questions:)
- econ 2y agoThe brain chip is just one more interface. I feel the need to remind the younglings that in the time before the internet we talked a lot and talked about whatever we wanted to. Moderation was done by the speaker himself by knowing people. Imagine that! It sometimes got emotional or violent but that is an important part of communication. Looking at your watch was somewhat of an insult as if the other failed to be interesting enough. Today no one is interesting enough to talk in long form, few remember how Now imagine direct thought moderation. After all, thoughts belong to people? I thought it first? You can't just... It is clear we should control your thoughts. We can't just have you think random things. It would be like like TikTok! Or like reading books!Terrifying! We are quite used to the man behind the curtain deciding everything for us. At what point would the deal get to absurd I wonder? Would 1984 eventually become a really boring book? Would it exist at all? Would people save up social credits to read it? Other civilizations must have tried all possible variations with rather predictable results. To a free mind I mean. Or are we already puppets on a string? How much am I boring you with this? Should I be allowed?
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago> We, with our books, have successfully prevented people from educating themselves with amazing implications Que? No, really... what?
- 2y ago
- monomyth 2y agothis is as retarded as asking someone to forget a picture they have seen