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

• AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What is “patching pixels” and who would do it?

    source

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Is that not answered in the original article?

      source
• Jagger2097@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Explain

  source

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In order to violate copyright you need to copy the copyrighted material. Training an AI model doesn't do that.

    source