Totally unfair comparison. Reek was tortured and had his balls forcibly cut off to become what he was.

Rubio was like that from the start.

A president that doesn’t believe in civil rights and due process deserves neither.

One point three two emm bee 😁

The most ardent religious adherents insist that atheists have no morals. They have no idea what they’re talking about. The truth is that they listen intently to an atheist with no morals every time to go to church.

What could possibly make him more popular?

He gets to stay in the US, at least 🤷

If you hired someone to copy Ghibli’s style, then fed that into an AI as training data, it would completely negate your entire argument.

It is not illegal for an artist to copy someone else’s style. They can’t copy another artist’s work—that’s a derivative—but copying their style is perfectly legal. You can’t copyright a style.

All of that is irrelevant, however. The argument is that—somehow—training an AI with anything is somehow a violation of copyright. It is not. It is absolutely 100% not a violation of copyright to do that!

Copyright is all about distribution rights. Anyone can download whatever TF they want and they’re not violating anyone’s copyright. It’s the entity that sent the person the copyright that violated the law. Therefore, Meta, OpenAI, et al can host enormous libraries of copyrighted data in their data centers and use that to train their AI. It’s not illegal at all.

When some AI model produces a work that’s so similar to an original work that anyone would recognize it, “yeah, that’s from Spirited Away” then yes: They violated Ghibli’s copyright.

If the model produces an image of some random person in the style of Studio Ghibli that is not violating anyone’s copyright. It is not illegal nor is it immoral. No one is deprived of anything in such a transaction.

I think your understanding of generative AI is incorrect. It’s not just “logic and RNG”…

If it runs on a computer, it’s literally “just logic and RNG”. It’s all transistors, memory, and an RNG.

The data used to train an AI model is copyrighted. It’s impossible for something to exist without copyright (in the past 100 years). Even public domain works had copyright at some point.

if any of the training data is copyrighted, then attribution must be given, or at the very least permission to use this data must be given by the current copyright holder.

This is not correct. Every artist ever has been trained with copyrighted works, yet they don’t have to recite every single picture they’ve seen or book they’ve ever read whenever they produce something.

To be fair, that entire industry, wines about everything.

I’m still not getting it. What does generative AI have to do with attribution? Like, at all.

I can train a model on a billion pictures from open, free sources that were specifically donated for that purpose and it’ll be able to generate realistic pictures of those things with infinite variation. Every time it generates an image it’s just using logic and RNG to come up with options.

Do we attribute the images to the RNG god or something? It doesn’t make sense that attribution come into play here.

That’s a good point. Many do seem to worship the holy blunt 🤔

I believe the lesson here is that marijuana just isn’t toxic enough to kill anyone.

What are you talking about? Jesus helps people cross the border all the time!

Him and his cousin, Jose.

I’m surprised Trump and Musk aren’t up in arms about the “car body count”. “Won’t somebody think of the children… We want to put to work–on overnight shifts, on school nights–making cars like this!”

It’s his own fault. He should’ve brought a switch and started whipping people whilst turning over a few tables.

His behavior wasn’t Christ-like enough.

They created golems powered by compressed air instead of magic.

Definitely marking this down in my mental, “in case of Isekai” notes.

If you studied loads of classic art then started making your own would that be a derivative work? Because that’s how AI works.

The presence of watermarks in output images is just a side effect of the prompt and its similarity to training data. If you ask for a picture of an Olympic swimmer wearing a purple bathing suit and it turns out that only a hundred or so images in the training match that sort of image–and most of them included a watermark–you can end up with a kinda-sorta similar watermark in the output.

It is absolutely 100% evidence that they used watermarked images in their training. Is that a problem, though? I wouldn’t think so since they’re not distributing those exact images. Just images that are “kinda sorta” similar.

If you try to get an AI to output an image that matches someone else’s image nearly exactly… is that the fault of the AI or the end user, specifically asking for something that would violate another’s copyright (with a derivative work)?

…in the same way that someone who’s read a lot of books can make money by writing their own.

I wasn’t being pedantic. It’s a very fucking important distinction.

If you want to say “unethical” you say that. Law is an orthogonal concept to ethics. As anyone who’s studied the history of racism and sexism would understand.

Furthermore, it’s not clear that what Meta did actually was unethical. Ethics is all about how human behavior impacts other humans (or other animals). If a behavior has a direct negative impact that’s considered unethical. If it has no impact or positive impact that’s an ethical behavior.

What impact did OpenAI, Meta, et al have when they downloaded these copyrighted works? They were not read by humans–they were read by machines.

From an ethics standpoint that behavior is moot. It’s the ethical equivalent of trying to measure the environmental impact of a bit traveling across a wire. You can go deep down the rabbit hole and calculate the damage caused by mining copper and laying cables but that’s largely a waste of time because it completely loses the narrative that copying a billion books/images/whatever into a machine somehow negatively impacts humans.

It is not the copying of this information that matters. It’s the impact of the technologies they’re creating with it!

That’s why I think it’s very important to point out that copyright violation isn’t the problem in these threads. It’s a path that leads nowhere.

Would you say your research is evidence that the o1 model was built using data/algorithms taken from OpenAI via industrial espionage (like Sam Altman is purporting without evidence)? Or is it just likely that they came upon the same logical solution?

Not that it matters, of course! Just curious.