It’s all made from our data, anyway, so it should be ours to use as we want

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    So what you’re saying is that there’s no way to make it legal and it simply needs to be deleted entirely.

    I agree.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s no need to “make it legal”, things are legal by default until a law is passed to make them illegal. Or a court precedent is set that establishes that an existing law applies to the new thing under discussion.

      Training an AI doesn’t involve copying the training data, the AI model doesn’t literally “contain” the stuff it’s trained on. So it’s not likely that existing copyright law makes it illegal to do without permission.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s no need to “make it legal”, things are legal by default until a law is passed to make them illegal.

        Yes, and that’s already happened: it’s called “copyright law.” You can’t mix things with incompatible licenses into a derivative work and pretend it’s okay.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        By this logic, you can copy a copyrighted imege as long as you decrease the resolution, because the new image does not contain all the information in the original one.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Am I allowed to take a copyrighted image, decrease its size to 1x1 pixels and publish it? What about 2x2?

          It’s very much not clear when a modification violates copyright because copyright is extremely vague to begin with.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Just because something is defined legally instead of technologically, that doesn’t make it vague. The modification violates copyright when the result is a derivative work; no more, no less.

            • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              What is a derivative work though? That’s again extremely vague and has been subject to countless lawsuits seeking to determine the bounds.

        • Voyajer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          More like reduce it to a handful of vectors that get merged with other vectors.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In the case of Stable Diffusion, they used 5 billion images to train a model 1.83 gigabytes in size. So if you reduce a copyrighted image to 3 bits (not bytes - bits), then yeah, I think you’re probably pretty safe.

          • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Your calculation is assuming that the input images are statistically independent, which is certainly not the case (otherwise the model would be useless for generating new images)

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Of course it’s silly. Of course the images are not statistically independent, that’s the point. There are still people to this day who claim that stable diffusion and its ilk are producing “collages” of their training images, please tell this to them.

              The way that these models work is by learning patterns from their training material. They learn styles, shapes, meanings. None of those things are covered by copyright.