My brain has been trained on even more copyrighted material. Every book I read, every tv show I watch, the toys I played with as a child. It's hard to imagine that I could come up with anything that is not inspired by copyrighted work.
That is legitimately a problem, people get sued for it all the time.
1: you cannot produce thousands of detailed pictures in a day, this program can. The argument gets pretty clear if you transpose it to other objects, ie why is it fair to ride a bicycle in the sidewalk but not drive a car?
2: copyright laws. You may not see a picture and imitate it. How do you know this AI didn't just imitate one of the million pictures it saw? And if you distribute it and the author wants to sue, who should it sue? The author of the AI or the person who prompted it?
thought is not a crime yet.
thought police is not a thing, yet...
Car manufacturers in the future may offer to take on the liability themselves for autopilot mistakes, but that's not yet the deal offered.
At the end of the day, there's no legal magic or loopholes. Somebody is ultimately the operator of the vehicle, even if their hands aren't on the steering wheel.
I don't think we should distinguish between meat and silicon neural networks. People should be able to use whichever neural network they see fit for a particular task. If a person has a right to observe and incorporate an image, so should a ML model operated by that person.
Also, you may see a picture and imitate it. You may not copy or redistribute it directly.
> How do you know this AI didn't just imitate one of the million pictures it saw
I think the onus is on the copyright holder to prove a violation to a specific work.
> who should it sue?
I think the operator of the network is liable. If you distribute an image that is found to be in violation of a copyright, then you are liable no matter how you came about it.
Sending me ads doesn't constitute a transaction, besides I usually don't choose to look at them anyway.
If a human has a right to view and learn from a copyrighted image on the internet, why shouldn't an AI?
because by buying the book you are not buying the right to distribute derivative works of that book.
I prefer straightforward movie piracy than the "hidden behind a curtain of supposedly artistic value" one.
What your brain has learned cannot be transferred with an USB stick in seconds
Not even your offspring will receive any of it
If I want to learn everything you know, I have to learn what you learned , assuming I will be able to
Kinda of a big difference, don't you think?
These kinds of comments are embarrassingly low effort, just because we threw rocks at each other when we all were chimps, doesn't mean that guns haven't been a game changer and made homicide easier even for people that would never be able to hit anybody by throwing rocks.
Your comment implies that DALL-E 2 is morally okay, because they don't distribute the model ("copy everything it knows to a USB stick") but only sell access to the algorithm to generate images, while Stable Diffusions open source model is a problem because it can be copied.
Most people would take the exact opposite stance I guess.
but I am replying to
"My brain has been trained on even more copyrighted material. Every book I read, every tv show I watch, the toys I played with as a child. It's hard to imagine that I could come up with anything that is not inspired by copyrighted work"
Difference being your brain has not been trained by someone (for profit), you have trained it using YEARS OF YOUR LIFE TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
which is morally acceptable (does not imply that the use you do of it is legally acceptable), given that you paid a very high price, sacrificing your own time for the objective.
And that your knowledge is only yours, you can't transfer it to anyone, it doesn't even show up in your DNA.
> Your comment implies that DALL-E 2 is morally okay, because they don't distribute the model
Implication doesn't mean what you think it means.
My comment doesn't imply anything of the sort, you are
> Most people would take the exact opposite stance I guess.
I'd expect that level of legislative response, and also would bet on lawsuits over any authorized data in their training corpus.
That's in fact a problem: plagiarism is considered cheating/intellectual dishonesty and can ruin a career, copyright infringement is punished by civil law (and fined), counterfeit is a crime, etc. etc.
You must retain yourself from copying too much, but only the original author (and eventually a judge) can decide if that happened.
If stable diffusion is used for counterfeiting or the result infringe the copyright, do you think the fact that the model was trained on unlicensed copyrighted material is irrelevant?
Nitpicking, but only unless it's not counterfeit material.
Claiming painting is from "famous painter X" while it's instead a copy it's an infringement.
How long before "famous painter X's new painting found in the attic of old lady"?
anyway, copying money is a crime, almost anywhere in the World, the simple act of making a copy is enough.
Money usually contain artworks
I would also not generate pictures of child pornography
There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images
Generating a digital image of money isn't the same thing as counterfeiting currency.
> I would also not generate pictures of child pornography
Legality aside, why not? Who is harmed?
> There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images
I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML.
of course there is, you're free as long as you respect the rules.