this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
430 points (83.1% liked)

Technology

59312 readers
5184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 69 points 9 months ago (115 children)

They literally asked it to give them a screenshot from the Joker movie. That was their fucking prompt. It's not like they just said "draw Joker" and it spit out a screenshot from the movie, they had to work really hard to get that exact image.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (109 children)

Because this proves that the "AI", at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of its training set.

Likely because the "AI" was trained upon this image at some point. This has repercussions with regards to copyright law. It means the training set contains copyrighted data and the use of said training set could be argued as piracy.

Legal discussions on how to talk about generative-AI are only happening now, now that people can experiment with the technology. But its not like our laws have changed, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If the training data is obviously copyright infringement, then the data must be retrained in a more appropriate manner.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.

Doesn’t this prove that a human, at some level, is storing the data of the Joker movie screenshot somewhere inside of their memory?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So let’s say I ask a talented human artist the same thing.

Artists don't have hard drives or solid state drives that accept training weights.

When you have a hard drive (or other object that easily creates copies), then the law that follows is copyright, with regards to the use and regulation of those copies. It doesn't matter if you use a Xerox machine, VHS tape copies, or a Hard Drive. All that matters is that you're easily copying data from one location to another.

And yes. When a human recreates a copy of a scene clearly inspired by copyrighted data, its copyright infringement btw. Even if you recreate it from memory. It doesn't matter how I draw Pikachu, if everyone knows and recognizes it as Pikachu, I'm infringing upon Nintendo's copyright (and probably their trademark as well).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Nope humans don't store data perfectly with perfect recall.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

Neither do neural networks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Humans can get pretty close to perfect recall with enough practice - show a human that exact joker image hundreds of thousands of times, they're going to be able to remember every detail.

That's what happened here - the example images weren't just in the training set once, they are in the training set over and over and over again across hundreds of thousands of websites.

If someone wants these images nobody is going to use AI to access it - they'll just do a google image search. There is no way Warner Brothers is harmed in any way by this, which is a strong fair use defence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Some do. Should we jail all the talented artists with photographic memories?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

If they exactly reproduce others work, and gain a profit for it, a fine would be the minimum.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If they're copying copyrighted works, usually its a fine, especially if they're making money from it.

You know that performance artists get sued when they replicate a song in public from memory, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I don't think anyone is advocating to legalize the sale of copyrighted material made via AI.

load more comments (105 replies)
load more comments (110 replies)