zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. chrisc+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-01-14 07:24:11
Why only Stability AI and not OpenAI?
replies(2): >>supriy+Y >>cloudk+PN
2. supriy+Y[view] [source] 2023-01-14 07:34:41
>>chrisc+(OP)
Going against a less well-funded company makes a favorable outcome more likely. Further, they only need a precedent - a ruling against SD would also apply to Dall-E.
replies(1): >>chrisc+ug
◧◩
3. chrisc+ug[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-14 10:28:59
>>supriy+Y
Makes sense. Does that mean OpenAI could essentially help fund Stability AI’s defense then?
replies(1): >>__rito+vP
4. cloudk+PN[view] [source] 2023-01-14 15:46:48
>>chrisc+(OP)
They filed a separate issue for Github Copilot https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/
◧◩◪
5. __rito+vP[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-14 16:00:21
>>chrisc+ug
I think they should. A lot of law is about precedent.

AI-focused companies should get together, form a group, and have real experts giving expert testimony under oath.

I also think that the courts will form expert committees consisting of real experts like Bengio, LeCun, etc.

Any grifters should be avoided, but I am not sure if the judges will understand the difference.

replies(1): >>rvz+SG2
◧◩◪◨
6. rvz+SG2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-01-15 10:37:26
>>__rito+vP
Stability AI already drew this line with Dance Diffusion (like SD but for musicians) [0] trained on public domain music and on copyrighted music only with the permission from musicians?

The fact that Stabiliity is now creating an opt-out for artists after lifting and training on copyrighted / watermarked art without permission and creating a paid SaaS solution out of it, shows that not only they willfully trampled on the copyright of artists, but they have set themselves on a weak explanation on the 'fair use, transformative' argument since the LAION-5B model contains the copyrighted images which can output verbatim / highly similar digital art by the model.

The input from 'real experts like Bengio, LeCun' add little to no value in the case as digital art generated by a non-human is uncopyrightable and is public domain by default. [1] What sets the precedent is whether if using copyrighted content in a training set without permission from the author and outputting verbatim or highly similar derived works and commercializing that is fair use and not infringing.

If SD drew this line or musicians, then that should be the line drawn for digital art and code, and both Copilot, Midjourney, SD and DALL-E should be trained on public domain content or content with the permission from the content author or licenses that allow AI training.

So far, the 'real' grifters are Stability AI, OpenAI and Midjourney.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/07/ai-music-generator-dance-d...

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

[go to top]