Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall...
by tsbinz on Monday June 15, 2020 @09:48AM
(#23527259)
Big companies definitely care a lot more about these things than universities or "small-time researchers". I've been in long meetings with corporate lawyers at multiple big companies, and they are a lot more careful than you imply (because they have more to lose). It's always a risk vs reward thing. Things like "copyright doesn't apply here at all. You can use whatever training data you want as long as your model is sufficiently transformative." are not certain until they have been tested in courts, and will be different for each case (it's a lot easier to argue that a simple classifier is transformative than a GAN that might reproduce one of its training inputs, for example). An additional complication is that if you're a company that's operating globally, you have to pay attention to a lot more laws.
Where I work now we work a lot with synthetic training data, because dealing with "real" data is complicated.
Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall...
by Hendrikto on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:56PM
(#23529635)
> As a machine learning researcher, where exactly am I supposed to get a dataset that complies with Facebook's/Kaggle's rules in this case?
From Kaggle… There is a datasat provided for each challenge.
No one is disputing that the team was disqualified fair and square. But this rule – where you must get consent from every single person appearing in your training data – seems neither standard nor sensible.
Firstly, as someone else pointed out, copyright doesn't apply here at all. You can use whatever training data you want as long as your model is sufficiently transformative. OpenAI used terabytes of copyrighted music in their training for OpenAI Jukebox; they certainly didn't get a license from every musician.
Beyond that – big companies don't play by this rule! If a BigCo wants to train on some data, you bet they'll be using it. When's the last time Google sent you an email like "Are you ok with us using your flickr photos to help improve Google Image Search?"
So my question is simple: in the context of this competition, where should I go to get a decent dataset? The winners were disqualified doing exactly what I would have done. What's the alternative?
Also, yes, ethics are a concern. If you're concerned about ethics, aim it at big companies, not us small fries that are merely trying to win some cash. Again, no one disputes that they were disqualified for valid reasons. But it has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the artificial constraints imposed by this competition.