News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by visarga on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @01:28AM (#33431714)
I think it's a power grab in both directions. Are artists entitled to restrict new works just for being similar in a way to their work? How similar is too similar?

And the other way around - are we allowed to train and use neural nets on anyone's work, assuming no near duplicates are generated?

Technically the neural net does not have a copy of the originals inside, it has their summed up gradients. The original model shrunk 4B images to a mere 4GB file, so 1 byte/image worth of information learned from each example, a measly pixel.

The model has learned un-copyrightable things like the shapes of various objects and animals, how they relate, their colours and textures. That should be protected. Let them finally learn how many fingers we have.

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by wnkrshm on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @03:41AM (#33432406)
A digital photo of the Eiffel tower at night doesn't have the real Eiffel tower inside, only weights and pixels - still you don't have the rights to publish your photo of the Eiffel tower in France.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by visarga on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @05:38AM (#33433274)
Drawings and art including the Eiffel tower are still ok, right?
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by ilyt on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @06:59AM (#33433873)
> Trained models don't have the actual images inside, they have summed up gradients. So what they are doing is far from a copy&paste job, it's more like decomposing and recomposing from basic concepts, something made clear by the "variations" mode.

Doesn't matter. JPEG of the work is just a bit of numbers to feed equation, doesn't change the fact it's copyright infringement