So you don’t interact with AI stuff outside of that? Have you seen any cool research papers or messed with any local models recently? Getting a bit of experience with the stuff can help you better inform people and see through the more bogus headlines.

It definitely seems that way depending on what media you choose to consume. You should try to balance the doomer scroll with actual research and open source news.

Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use

You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.

Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free.

I agree

I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.

But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.

But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.

AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers like these only benefit the ultra-wealthy and will end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.

Is Miyazaki going to go in on his son again?

Fuck 'em. I don’t care. I hope no one uses them.

He’s not trying to get copyright for something he generated, he’s trying to have the court award copyright to his AI system “DABUS”, but copyright is for humans. Humans using Gen AI are eligible for copyright according to the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.

One of the provisions of fair use is the effects on the market. If your spambot is really shitting up the place, you may very well run afoul of the doctrine.

We’re saying the same thing here. It’s just your characterization of gen AI as a “tech-enabled copying device” isn’t accurate. You should read this which breaks down how all this works.

The fair use doctrine allows you to do just that. The alternative would be someone being able to publish a book and then shutting anyone else out of publishing, discussing, or building on their ideas without them getting a kick-back.

The funny part is most of the headlines want you to believe that using things without permission is somehow against copyright. When in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich. It’s sad watching people desperately trying to become the kind of system they’re against.

I recommend reading this article by Cory Doctorow, and this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

I just want to mess with this one too. I had a hard time finding an abliterated one before that didn’t fail the Tiananmen Square question regularly.

Can’t wait to try a distillation. The full model is huge.

I’ve heard of this happening when you generate datasets with ChatGPT to help train your model. OpenAI doesn’t want you doing this, making it against their terms of use, but there’s nothing they can do to stop people. You can generate some really good synthetic datasets from ChatGPT, and it’s perfectly legal to do.

Were you running it locally?

Here’s a video explaining how diffusion models work, and this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF.

Your comment made my day. Thanks.

Anyone spreading this misinformation and trying gatekeep being an artist after the avant-garde movement doesn’t have an ounce of education in art history. Generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that’s shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

Entertainment.

Their policy could never stop anyone in the first place.