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.

This completely ignores all the endless (open) academic work going on in the AI space. Loads of universities have AI data centers now and are doing great research that is being published out in the open for anyone to use and duplicate.

I’ve downloaded several academic models and all commercial models and AI tools are based on all that public research.

I run AI models locally on my PC and you can too.

They’re not illegally harvesting anything. Copyright law is all about distribution. As much as everyone loves to think that when you copy something without permission you’re breaking the law the truth is that you’re not. It’s only when you distribute said copy that you’re breaking the law (aka violating copyright).

All those old school notices (e.g. “FBI Warning”) are 100% bullshit. Same for the warning the NFL spits out before games. You absolutely can record it! You just can’t share it (or show it to more than a handful of people but that’s a different set of laws regarding broadcasting).

I download AI (image generation) models all the time. They range in size from 2GB to 12GB. You cannot fit the petabytes of data they used to train the model into that space. No compression algorithm is that good.

The same is true for LLM, RVC (audio models) and similar models/checkpoints. I mean, think about it: If AI is illegally distributing millions of copyrighted works to end users they’d have to be including it all in those files somehow.

Instead of thinking of an AI model like a collection of copyrighted works think of it more like a rough sketch of a mashup of copyrighted works. Like if you asked a person to make a Godzilla-themed My Little Pony and what you got was that person’s interpretation of what Godzilla combined with MLP would look like. Every artist would draw it differently. Every author would describe it differently. Every voice actor would voice it differently.

Those differences are the equivalent of the random seed provided to AI models. If you throw something at a random number generator enough times you could–in theory–get the works of Shakespeare. Especially if you ask it to write something just like Shakespeare. However, that doesn’t meant the AI model literally copied his works. It’s just doing it’s best guess (it’s literally guessing! That’s how work!).

Also, the most people will die in red states.

Take of that knowledge what you will.

If you don’t what the OP here is talking about, both Tesla and Musk have loans that require collateral. If Tesla’s stock drops enough it will go below the collateral threshold and the banks to whom the money is owed will come calling.

Since Musk owns many billions in other things he can easily pay up when that happens but wow will it be expensive and embarrassing. He might even fall out of the top 100 richest!

Trump will pardon them. It’s only a matter of time.

He’ll be dead by then and he knows it.

What are you talking about? People emigrating (after an enormous genocide) is how this country was made!

Conservatives love the concept that private charities should be the ones who provide, “hand outs” (e.g. free food) and things like health care to those who can’t afford it. Except they always conveniently neglect the fact that all the charities in the world combined are but a fraction of a percent of government spending on similar things.

Furthermore, charities cannot hope to match the efficiency of governments providing the same services. Even the most inefficient government agencies have overhead far lower than the best-run charities.

Governments don’t have to solicit for donations. They aren’t beholden to the market or bad economic times. They can pool bureaucratic resources across multiple programs and take advantage of economies of scale that the biggest charities could only dream of.

The truth is that if you actually want to help the most desperate people of the world, government programs are the most efficient and effective way to do so.

Thousands of tons of plastic pollution

OK so a trivial and insignificant amount.

Nope. In fact, if you generate a lot of images with AI you’ll sometimes notice something resembling a watermark in the output. Demonstrating that the images used to train the model did indeed have watermarks.

Removing such imaginary watermarks is trivial in image2image tools though (it’s just a quick extra step after generation).