Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators

• drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  How are you going to stop that lol it’s ridiculous. Would you stop a corporate suit from viewing your painting because they might learn how to make a similar one? It’s makes absolutely zero sense and I can’t believe delulus online are failing to comprehend such simple concept of “computers being able to learn”.

  source

  • yuki2501@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ah yes, just because lockpickers can enter a house suddenly everyone’s allowed to break and enter. 🙄

    source

    • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What a terrible analogy for learning 🙄

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s not learning

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Computers can’t learn. I’m really tired of seeing this idea paraded around.

    You’re clearly showing your ignorance here. Computers do not learn, they create statistical models based on input data.

    A human seeing a piece of art and being inspired isn’t comparable to a machine reducing that to 1’s and 0’s and then adjusting weights in a table somewhere. It does not “understand” the concept, nor did it “learn” about a new piece of art.

    Enforcement is simple. Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright against every artist who’s art was used illegally to train the model. If the copyright holders of all the training data are compensated and have opt-in agreed to be used for training then, and only then would the output of the model be able to be used.

    source

    • cm0002@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      they create statistical models based on input data.

      Any output from a model trained on material that they don’t have copyright for is a violation of copyright

      There’s no copyright violation, you said it yourself, any output is just the result of a statistical model and the original art would be under fair use derivative work (If it falls under copyright at all)

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Considering most models can spit out training data, that’s not a true statement. Training data may not be explicitly saved, but it can be retrieved from these models.

        Existing copyright law can’t be applied here because it doesn’t cover something like this.

        It 100% should be a copyright infringement for every image generated using the stolen work of others.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s literally in the name. Machine learning. Ignorance is not an excuse.

      source

      • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s just one of the dumbest things I’ve heard.

        Naming has nothing to do with how the tech actually works

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wait until you find out how human artists learn.

  source

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And you don’t see how those two things are different?

    source

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And you don’t see how those two things are similar?

      source
  • BURN@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They learn completely different from an AI model, considering an AI model cannot learn

    source

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Prove it.

      source