8 ms·

No 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 respe

No 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 ago
Insofar 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Should 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
      Llms are not humans and shouldn’t be anthropomorphized as a strategy to get around copyright infringement.
      - llm_trw 2y ago
        That's an opinion that will be tested in a court soon enough.
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        And if they do get anthropomorphized... then the people in charge of that company need to be charged with the heinous crime of enslaving children.
      - protocolture 2y ago
        Absolutely correct, LLMs are code. If that code ingests data without precisely replicating it, that's fair use and the end of the discussion.
      - econ 2y ago
        I've been uhh.. suffering(?) a different perspective. A company may hire a human to talk for it or its owner may talk for it.. the server rack and the software are things it can own. I don't think others are nesasarly any longer talking for it. It is an absurd leap we've made but companies are also legal persons. The companies are still of human design full of human behaviour and human characteristics while the LLMs actively try to imitate humans. The dictionary saying: anthropomorphized: attribute human characteristics or behaviour to (a god, animal, or object). If it passes the Turing test surely anthropomorphizing is fair game? (I have no stake in this)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      When a human does it, it's fine. When OpenAI's servers do it its copyright infringement. We don't apply copyrights to human brains, but we do apply copyright to computer memory.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      A motivated legislature with skilled enforcement personnel could get the toothpaste back in the tube in short order provided they displayed an anomalous insensitivity to making the money sad.
      - botanical76 2y ago
        When has something like this ever happened? It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.
        Terr_ 2y ago
        One big example involves making a lot of US plantation-money sad and scared, so much that it started a civil-war. Granted, that was more the exception than the rule...
        maeil 2y ago
        > When has something like this ever happened? Anything that used to be freely available but no longer is. Once upon a time Laudanum (tincture of opium) used to be the OTC painkiller of choice. In slightly more recent times, there's asbestos. In certain locales, gambling. There's countries that have reigned in lootboxes. > It feels like legislature exists to make money happy. Come on now, it doesn't just "feel" that way, you know for a fact that is indeed the purpose of the modern US legislature.
        tomrod 2y ago
        A single consumable is easy to ban. Computer binaries widely distributed isn't.
        maeil 2y ago
  - pj_mukh 2y ago
    Dumb question: Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works? AI or not. Like selling it for money seems like a clear line crossed, and Etsy is the perfect gatekeeper here.
    - jsheard 2y ago
      Etsy stopped caring a while ago, it was supposed to be a marketplace specifically for selling handmade items but they allowed it to be overrun with mass produced tat dropshipped direct from the factory. Turning a blind eye to plagiarism with or without AI is just the next logical step from there.
    - girvo 2y ago
      > Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works They don't, in that they'll ban you for it once you're big enough
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Style isnt protected?
- toddmorey 2y ago
  For clarity, I do agree that synthetic data is huge for training AI to do certain tasks or skills. But I don’t think creative work generation is powered by synthetic data and may not be for a quite while.
- simonw 2y ago
  Has synthetic data become a big part of image/video models? I understand why it's useful and popular for training LLMs, but I didn't think it was applicable to generative image/video work.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    I haven't had the chance to train diffusion models but for detection models synthetic data is absolutely how you get state of the art performance now. You just need a relatively tiny extremely high quality dataset to bootstrap from.
- numpad0 2y ago
  Isn't that just weird cope? I mean, why not just LLM automate UE if that's the goal & how isn't that itself going to get torpedoed by Epic?
dylan604 2y ago
> 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. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in the wild. FFS
- nicbou 2y ago
  The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.
  - isoprophlex 2y ago
    Mirrors that of a sexual predator. "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."
    - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
      > "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow." the trick is to come back tomorrow, but with a rusty and jagged metal mousetrap hidden in one's underwear... and a camera for posterity, and some witnesses to come point-and-laugh at the perp.
    - nicbou 2y ago
      This is something I frequently point out to. If someone understood constent like tech companies do, they'd be banned from a few bars. Look up "rules for consent" and think about how consensual your relationship with tech companies is. Here's one: https://stopsexualviolence.iu.edu/policies-terms/consent.html https://stopsexualviolence.iu.edu/policies-terms/consent.htm...
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Understanding is a curious choice of words. I’d have gone with total disregard
recursivecaveat 2y ago
100%, like most opt-outs this exists as a checklist feature that proponents can point to and hopefully convince bystanders. You muddy the waters by allowing someone to with great effort technically possibly achieve the thing they want, maybe, for now, until you close it in 2 years and everyone says "well that makes sense nobody used that feature anyways".
andrei_says_ 2y ago
Reminds me of the time when p2p music sharing became popular and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed. Or was it that the record companies got to sue individuals for astronomic amounts of made up damages for every song potentially shared? Which one was it?
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  > and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed. ...when did that ever happen? The post-Napster-but-pre-BitTorrent era (coincidentally, the same time-period as the BonziBuddy-era) was when Morpheus, KaZaA, eDonkey, Limewire, et cetera were relevant, and they got-away-with-it, in-part, by denying they had any ability to moderate their users' file-sharing; there was no "submitting of every song" to an exclusion-list because there was no exclusion-list or filtering in the first place.
  - orra 2y ago
    This almost got me too, but you missed GP’s point. See their next paragraph beginning “Or”. (It's about double standards for individual versus corporate copyright infringement.)
htrp 2y ago
Sounds like they want photographers to do the data labeling for them....

echelon 2y ago

Insofar 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Should 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
    Llms are not humans and shouldn’t be anthropomorphized as a strategy to get around copyright infringement.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      That's an opinion that will be tested in a court soon enough.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      And if they do get anthropomorphized... then the people in charge of that company need to be charged with the heinous crime of enslaving children.
    - protocolture 2y ago
      Absolutely correct, LLMs are code. If that code ingests data without precisely replicating it, that's fair use and the end of the discussion.
    - econ 2y ago
      I've been uhh.. suffering(?) a different perspective. A company may hire a human to talk for it or its owner may talk for it.. the server rack and the software are things it can own. I don't think others are nesasarly any longer talking for it. It is an absurd leap we've made but companies are also legal persons. The companies are still of human design full of human behaviour and human characteristics while the LLMs actively try to imitate humans. The dictionary saying: anthropomorphized: attribute human characteristics or behaviour to (a god, animal, or object). If it passes the Turing test surely anthropomorphizing is fair game? (I have no stake in this)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    When a human does it, it's fine. When OpenAI's servers do it its copyright infringement. We don't apply copyrights to human brains, but we do apply copyright to computer memory.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    A motivated legislature with skilled enforcement personnel could get the toothpaste back in the tube in short order provided they displayed an anomalous insensitivity to making the money sad.
    - botanical76 2y ago
      When has something like this ever happened? It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        One big example involves making a lot of US plantation-money sad and scared, so much that it started a civil-war. Granted, that was more the exception than the rule...
      - maeil 2y ago
        > When has something like this ever happened? Anything that used to be freely available but no longer is. Once upon a time Laudanum (tincture of opium) used to be the OTC painkiller of choice. In slightly more recent times, there's asbestos. In certain locales, gambling. There's countries that have reigned in lootboxes. > It feels like legislature exists to make money happy. Come on now, it doesn't just "feel" that way, you know for a fact that is indeed the purpose of the modern US legislature.
        tomrod 2y ago
        A single consumable is easy to ban. Computer binaries widely distributed isn't.
        maeil 2y ago
- pj_mukh 2y ago
  Dumb question: Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works? AI or not. Like selling it for money seems like a clear line crossed, and Etsy is the perfect gatekeeper here.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    Etsy stopped caring a while ago, it was supposed to be a marketplace specifically for selling handmade items but they allowed it to be overrun with mass produced tat dropshipped direct from the factory. Turning a blind eye to plagiarism with or without AI is just the next logical step from there.
  - girvo 2y ago
    > Why does Etsy allowed clearly reproduced/copied works They don't, in that they'll ban you for it once you're big enough
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- protocolture 2y ago
  Style isnt protected?
toddmorey 2y ago
For clarity, I do agree that synthetic data is huge for training AI to do certain tasks or skills. But I don’t think creative work generation is powered by synthetic data and may not be for a quite while.
simonw 2y ago
Has synthetic data become a big part of image/video models? I understand why it's useful and popular for training LLMs, but I didn't think it was applicable to generative image/video work.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- llm_trw 2y ago
  I haven't had the chance to train diffusion models but for detection models synthetic data is absolutely how you get state of the art performance now. You just need a relatively tiny extremely high quality dataset to bootstrap from.
numpad0 2y ago
Isn't that just weird cope? I mean, why not just LLM automate UE if that's the goal & how isn't that itself going to get torpedoed by Epic?

dylan604 2y ago

> 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. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in the wild. FFS

nicbou 2y ago
The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.
- isoprophlex 2y ago
  Mirrors that of a sexual predator. "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow."
  - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
    > "Oh I'm not groping you today? No worries, I'll be back tomorrow." the trick is to come back tomorrow, but with a rusty and jagged metal mousetrap hidden in one's underwear... and a camera for posterity, and some witnesses to come point-and-laugh at the perp.
  - nicbou 2y ago
    This is something I frequently point out to. If someone understood constent like tech companies do, they'd be banned from a few bars. Look up "rules for consent" and think about how consensual your relationship with tech companies is. Here's one: https://stopsexualviolence.iu.edu/policies-terms/consent.html https://stopsexualviolence.iu.edu/policies-terms/consent.htm...
- dylan604 2y ago
  Understanding is a curious choice of words. I’d have gone with total disregard

recursivecaveat 2y ago

100%, like most opt-outs this exists as a checklist feature that proponents can point to and hopefully convince bystanders. You muddy the waters by allowing someone to with great effort technically possibly achieve the thing they want, maybe, for now, until you close it in 2 years and everyone says "well that makes sense nobody used that feature anyways".

andrei_says_ 2y ago

Reminds me of the time when p2p music sharing became popular and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed. Or was it that the record companies got to sue individuals for astronomic amounts of made up damages for every song potentially shared? Which one was it?

DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
> and the record companies had to submit every song they did not want to get shared along with an explanation to every person who had Napster installed. ...when did that ever happen? The post-Napster-but-pre-BitTorrent era (coincidentally, the same time-period as the BonziBuddy-era) was when Morpheus, KaZaA, eDonkey, Limewire, et cetera were relevant, and they got-away-with-it, in-part, by denying they had any ability to moderate their users' file-sharing; there was no "submitting of every song" to an exclusion-list because there was no exclusion-list or filtering in the first place.
- orra 2y ago
  This almost got me too, but you missed GP’s point. See their next paragraph beginning “Or”. (It's about double standards for individual versus corporate copyright infringement.)

htrp 2y ago

Sounds like they want photographers to do the data labeling for them....