Comment

Comment on This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI

AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Obviously this is using some bug and/or weakness in the existing training process, so couldn’t they just patch the mechanism being exploited?

I'd assume the issue is that if someone tried to patch it out, it could legally be shown they were disregarding people's copyright.

Sort:hotnew top

FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It isn't against copyright to train models on published art.

source
- AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The general argument legally is that the AI has no exact memory of the copyrighted material.
  
  But if that's the case, then these pixels shouldn't need be patched. Because it wouldn't remember the material that spawned them.
  
  Is just the argument I assume would be used.
  
  source
  - Maven@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s like training an artist who’s never seen a banana or a fire hydrant, by passing them pictures of fire hydrants labelled “this is a banana”. When you ask for a banana, you’ll get a fire hydrant. Correcting that mistake doesn’t mean “undoing pixels”, it means teaching the AI what bananas and fire hydrants are.
    
    source
  - FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Well, I guess we'll see how that argument plays in court. I don't see how it follows, myself.
    
    source
  - KeenFlame@feddit.nu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    What is “patching pixels” and who would do it?
    
    source
    AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Is that not answered in the original article?
    
    source
- Jagger2097@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Explain
  
  source
  - FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    In order to violate copyright you need to copy the copyrighted material. Training an AI model doesn't do that.
    
    source