Comment on Meta’s new AI image generator was trained on 1.1 billion Instagram and Facebook photos
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 1 year agoThat shouldn’t be an issue. If you look at an unauthorized image copy, you’re not usually on the hook (unless you are intentionally pirating). It’s unlikely that they needed to get explicit “consent” (ie license the images) in the first place.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 year ago
Yeah but is it the same thing for a human to view data and an AI model to be trained on it? Not in my opinion as an AI doesn’t understand the concept of intellectual property and just spits out the most likely next word whereas a person can recognize when they are copying something.
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 1 year ago
I understand. The idea would be to hold AI makers liable for contributory infringement, reminiscent of the Betamax case.
I don’t think that would work in court. The argument is much weaker here than in the Betamax case, and even then it didn’t convince. But yes, it’s prudent to get the explicit permission, just in case of a case.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 year ago
Doesn’t really seem the similar to me at all. One is a thing that’s actively making new content. Another is a machine with the purpose of time-shifting broadcasted content that’s already been paid for.
It’s reminiscent insofar as personal AI models on individual machines would go, but completely different as for corporate and monetizable usage.
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 1 year ago
Yes, if it’s new content, it’s obviously no copy; so no copyvio (unless derivative, like fan fiction, etc.). I was thinking of memorized training data being regurgitated.