News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by Waterluvian on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @02:15PM (#33425127)
Yeah, I think you're 100% right. There is no "should we do this?" question here. Like every technology ever invented, it's now here.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by bugfix-66 on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @02:25PM (#33425289)
It's a bit like saying we can't stop music piracy, now that Napster exists.

Napster was a peer-to-peer file sharing application. It originally launched on June 1, 1999, with an emphasis on digital audio file distribution. Audio songs shared on the service were typically encoded in the MP3 format. It was founded by Shawn Fanning, Sean Parker, and Hugo Sáez Contreras. As the software became popular, the company ran into legal difficulties over copyright infringement. It ceased operations in 2001 after losing a wave of lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.

Use of the output of systems like Copilot or Stable Diffusion becomes a violation of copyright. The weight tensors are illegal to possess, just like it's illegal to possess leaked Intel source code.

If you use the art in your product, on your website, etc., you risk legal action.

The companies that train these systems can't distribute them without risking legal action. So they won't do it. It's expensive to train these models.

It will always exist in the black-market underground, but the civilized world makes it illegal.

That's where this is going, I hope. Best case scenario.

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by PuddleCheese on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @02:42PM (#33425587)
Just because it's here doesn't mean it can't be modified going forward, and that we have to surrender to any and all ability to regulate anything. Fatalism can be attractive if you don't want to think about regulation, though, I suppose.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by operator-name on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @03:53PM (#33426558)
Regulation can't trump individual morals, and is driven by collective ethics. Deepfakes still exist and are actively being made and developed, even though many platforms have regulated it. Ignoring the difficulty of passing a hotly debated premise, regulating would only limit the actions of those who align with the regulation - as the article demonstrates even if Google are cautious to release their DreamBooth model and specifics it doesn't take much for someone to replicate it, ignoring (or ignorant) of such concerns.

This is obviously something that we're going to have to collectively figure out - the technology is here and the technology is still being developed. Either we adapt our thinking or consider it taboo. Anything else (such as restricting usage to a "trusted subset") is just delaying the inevitable.