OP replied and there's another in-depth reply to that below it
nerdsniper 15 hours ago [-]
OP's reply to that appears to be drafted with heavy help from ChatGPT:
> I appreciate you citing the specific clauses. You are reading the 'Black Letter Law' correctly, but you are missing the Litigation Reality (how this actually plays out in court). The 'Primarily Designed' Trap: You argue this only targets a specific 'Arnold Bot.' blah blah blah.
nerdponx 17 hours ago [-]
Still smells like malicious anti-competitive lobbying by the AI industry.
terminalshort 16 hours ago [-]
The industry does not fear open source models. This is just Karens doing what they do best.
beeflet 16 hours ago [-]
If the industry doesn't fear open-weight models, they should. There is no moat
mmcwilliams 9 hours ago [-]
The moat is building GPU infrastructure to serve inference at scale.
troyvit 6 hours ago [-]
Not just building GPU infrastructure to serve inference at scale, but also constraining GPU infrastructure and pricing it out of reach for individuals who wish to pursue open models.
I'm not sure what entirely to do about it, but the fact that some providers still release open models is hopeful to me.
hhh 15 hours ago [-]
Why? Almost all of the open source models end up actually sucking for general purpose use, and require a decent bit of effort to even make remotely usable for specialized use cases.
torginus 15 hours ago [-]
From what I could tell (Corridor Digital mentioned this as well), actual pros use local models through ComfyUI, rather than prompting these proprietary models.
Control and consistency, as well as support for specialized workflows is more important, even if it comes at the expense of model quality.
hackable_sand 14 hours ago [-]
Corridor Digital is also pretty despicable.
torginus 12 hours ago [-]
Why do you say that? I feel like such strong blanket statements at least warrant an explanation.
mcny 14 hours ago [-]
Because from what I understand, the whole premise of billionaires giving AI all their money is
1. AI succeeds and this success is defined by they will be able to raise prices really high
2. AI fails and receives a bailout
But if there are alternatives I can run locally, they can't raise prices as high because at some point I'd rather run stuff locally even if not state of the art. Like personally, USD 200 a month is already too expensive if you ask me.
And the prices can only go up, right?
hhh 13 hours ago [-]
not really, in a scenario where demand dies down surplus gpu compute becomes so under-utilized we would see it drop even lower I would think. Prices will go up of course if we keep seeing more tokens needed to solve problems, and demand keeps going up with no increase in efficiency or capacity, which is again not what we're seeing really.
HoJojoMojo 14 hours ago [-]
You are saying it needs at most minor tweaks when used for something specific like a product support channel?
For the long-term value of a horribly overpriced and debt ridden corporation it matters quite a lot if the catch up of open source to adequate is less than a decade in instead of several decades in some uses and a few more in others.
realusername 15 hours ago [-]
There's two scenarios going forward that I can see.
Either there's a massive reduction of inference and training costs due to new discoveries and then those big hardware hoarders have no moat anymore or nothing new is discovered and they won't be able to scale forward.
Either way it doesn't sound good for them.
like_any_other 8 hours ago [-]
At the moment. AI company management is not so myopic and can see the risk that this could change.
immibis 10 hours ago [-]
FYI there are no open source models, only open weights. Open source means you get source code.
mistrial9 7 hours ago [-]
yes there are completely open models -- look at Allen AI and others
alphazard 9 hours ago [-]
Likely unconstitutional as it violates the 1st amendment, which has done a very good job of protecting the right to author and distribute software over the years.
Clearly an unintended positive consequence, since no one who worked or voted on the Bill of Rights had a computer.
If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user.
Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US.
Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names.
There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
dleeftink 17 hours ago [-]
Not saying this would be the right way to go about preventing undesirable uses, but shouldn't building 'risky' technologies signal some risk to the ones developing them? Safe harbor clauses have long allowed the risks to be externalised onto the user, fostering non-responsibility on the developers behalf.
akersten 17 hours ago [-]
Foisting the responsibility of the extremely risky transport industry onto the road developers would certainly prevent all undesirable uses of those carriageways. Once they are at last responsible for the risky uses of their technology, like bank robberies and car crashes, the incentive to build these dangerous freeways evaporates.
idle_zealot 17 hours ago [-]
I think this is meant to show that moving the responsibility this way would be absurd because we don't do it for cars but... yeah, we probably should've done that for cars? Maybe then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.
interroboink 17 hours ago [-]
But I think you're missing their "like bank robberies" point. Punishing the avenue of transport for illegal activity that's unrelated to the transport itself is problematic. I.e. people that are driving safely, but using the roads to carry out bad non-driving-related activities.
It's a stretched metaphor at this point, but I hope that makes sense (:
wolrah 9 hours ago [-]
It is definitely getting stretchy at this point, but there is the point to be made that a lot of roads are built in a way which not only enables but encourages driving much faster than may be desired in the area where they're located. This, among other things, makes these roads more interesting as getaway routes for bank robbers.
If these roads had been designed differently, to naturally enforce the desired speeds, it would be a safer road in general and as a side effect be a less desirable getaway route.
Again I agree we're really stretching here, but there is a real common problem where badly designed roads don't just enable but encourage illegal and potentially unsafe driving. Wide, straight, flat roads are fast roads, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If you want low traffic speeds you need roads to be designed to be hostile to high speeds.
interroboink 4 hours ago [-]
I think you are imagining a high-speed chase, and I agree with you in that case.
But what I was trying to describe is a "mild mannered" getaway driver. Not fleeing from cops, not speeding. Just calmly driving to and from crimes. Should we punish the road makers for enabling such nefarious activity?
(it's a rhetorical question; I'm just trying to clarify the point)
akersten 17 hours ago [-]
We wouldn't have roads at all is my point, because no contractor in their right mind would take on unbounded risk for limited gain.
Retric 13 hours ago [-]
Selling anything takes on unbounded risk for limited gain. That’s why the limited liability company exists.
Risk becomes bound to the total value of the company and you can start acting rationally.
thaumasiotes 13 hours ago [-]
Historically it's the other way around - limited liability for corporations let juries feel free to award absurdly high judgments against them.
dleeftink 17 hours ago [-]
Which in case of digital replicas that can feign real people, may be worth considering. Not a blanket legislation as proposed here, but something that signals the downstream risks to the developer to prevent undesired uses.
tracker1 6 hours ago [-]
Then only foreign developers will be able to work with these kinds of technologies... the tools will still be made, they'll just be made by those outside jurisdiction.
akersten 16 hours ago [-]
Unless they released a model named "Tom Cruise-inator 3000," I don't see any way to legislate that intent that would provide any assurances to a developer that their misused model couldn't result in them facing significant legal peril. So anything in this ballpark has a huge chilling effect in my view. I think it's far too early in the AI game to even be putting pen to paper on new laws (the first AI bubble hasn't even popped, after all) but I understand that view is not universal.
dleeftink 16 hours ago [-]
I would say a text-based model carries a different risk profile compared to video-based ones. At some point (now?) we'd probably need to have the difficult conversation of what level of media-impersonation we are comfortable with.
akersten 16 hours ago [-]
It's messy because media impersonation has been a problem since the advent of communication. In the extreme, we're sort of asking "should we make lying illegal?"
The model (pardon) in my mind is like this:
* The forger of the banknote is punished, not the maker of the quill
* The author of the libelous pamphlet is punished, not the maker of the press
* The creep pasting heads onto scandalous bodies is punished, not the author of Photoshop
In this world view, how do we handle users of the magic bag of math? We've scarcely thought before that a tool should police its own use. Maybe, we can say, because it's too easy to do bad things with, it's crossed some nebulous line. But it's hard to argue for that on principle, as it doesn't sit consistently with the more tangible and well-trodden examples.
With respect to the above, all the harms are clearly articulated in the law as specific crimes (forgery, libel, defamation). The square I can't circle with proposals like the one under discussion is that they open the door for authors of tools to be responsible for whatever arbitrary and undiscovered harms await from some unknown future use of their work. That seems like a regressive way of crafting law.
thaumasiotes 13 hours ago [-]
> The creep pasting heads onto scandalous bodies is punished, not the author of Photoshop
In this case the guy making the images isn't doing anything wrong either.
Why would we punish him for pasting heads onto images, but not punish the artist who supplied the mannequin of Taylor Swift for the music video to Famous?†
Why would we punish someone for drawing us a picture of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother when it's fine to describe him doing it?
(Note that this video, like the recent SNL "Home Alone" sketch, has been censored by YouTube and cannot be viewed anonymously. Do we know why YouTube has recently kicked censorship up to these levels?)
KaiserPro 14 hours ago [-]
> then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.
You mean like speed limits, drivers licenses, seat belts, vehicle fitness and specific police for the roads?
I still can't see a legitimate use for anyone cloning anyone else's voice. Yes, satire and fun, but also a bunch of malicious uses as well. The same goes with non-fingerprinted video gen. Its already having a corrosive effect on public trust. Great memes, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure thats worth it.
ndriscoll 10 hours ago [-]
Creative work has obvious applications. e.g. AISIS - The Lost Tapes[0] was a sort of Oasis AI tribute album (the songs are all human written and performed, and then the band used a model of Liam Gallagher's mid 90s voice. Liam approved of the album after hearing it, saying he sounded "mega"). Some people have really unique voices and energy, and even the same artist might lose it over time (e.g. 90s vs 00s Oasis), so you could imagine voice cloning becoming just a standard part of media production.
As a former VFX person, I know that a couple of shows are testing out how/where it can be used. (currently its still more expensive than trad VFX, unless you are using it to make base models.)
Productivity gains in the VFX industry over the last 20 years has been immense. (ie a mid budget TV show has more, and more complex VFX work than most movies that are 10 years old, and look better.)
But, does that mean we should allow any bad actor to flood the floor with fake clips of whatever agenda they want to push? no. If I as a VFX enthusiast gets fooled by GenAI videos (Picture area done deal, its super hard to stop reliably) then we are super fucked.
ndriscoll 2 hours ago [-]
You said you can't see a legitimate use, but clearly there are legitimate uses (the "no legitimate use" idea is used to justify bad drug policy for example, so we should be skeptical of it). As to whether we should allow it, I don't see how we have a choice. The models are already out there. Even if they weren't, it becomes cheaper every year to train new ones, and eventually today's training supercomputers will be tomorrow's commodity. The whole idea of AI "fingerprinting" is bad anyway; you don't fingerprint that something is inauthentic. You sign that it is authentic.
dleeftink 17 hours ago [-]
And I am talking about user-facing app development specifically, which has a different risk profile compared to automative or civil engineering.
renewiltord 16 hours ago [-]
Well it would also apply to bike lanes.
ronsor 7 hours ago [-]
No.
The reason safe harbor clauses externalize risks onto the user is because the user gets the most use (heh) of the software.
No developer is going to accept unbounded risk based on user behavior for a limited reward, especially not if they're working for free.
tracker1 6 hours ago [-]
The reason safe harbor clauses exist is because you don't blame the car manufacturer for making the bank robbery get away car.
__MatrixMan__ 16 hours ago [-]
How can you know how people are going to use the stuff you make? This is how we end up in a world where a precondition to writing code is having lawyers on staff.
hansvm 16 hours ago [-]
Just last weekend I developed a faster reed-solomon encoder. I'm looking forward to my jail time when somebody uses it to cheaply and reliably persist bootlegged Disney assets, just because I had the gall to optimize some GF256 math.
dleeftink 8 hours ago [-]
That is not what I said. It is about signalling risks to developers, not criminalising them. And in terms of encoders, I would say it relates more to digital 'form' than 'content' anyways, the container of a creative work vs the 'creative' (created) work itself.
While both can be misused, to me the latter category seems to afford a far larger set of tertiary/unintended uses.
beeflet 16 hours ago [-]
No
geraldog 16 hours ago [-]
You know kids, in the 80s, a lot of time before the First Crypto Wars, we had something called the Porn Wars on American Congress. I could leave out many depositions to Congress on Youtube, but I will leave you with some good music.
Which is of course the European Version, not the evil American Version.
71bw 16 hours ago [-]
Is there some other music artist that has been present in the Congress as prevalently as Zappa...?
p0w3n3d 15 hours ago [-]
sorry for offtop but I've just discovered Frank Zappa and he looks and sounds like the precursor of Serj Tankian (SOAD) - I mean "sounds" like as in similar crazy all over the place style
Edit: Also does this mean OpenAI can bring back the Sky voice?
zx8080 16 hours ago [-]
> I contacted my reps email to flag this as an "innovation killer."
Chinese companies will happy to drive innovation further after Google and OpenAI giants goes on with this to kill competition in the US.
US capitalism eats itself alive with this.
scotty79 13 hours ago [-]
I really love how, thanks to China, people are beginning to see how technologically suppresive American oligarchy is and who's the reason why we can't have nice things.
_def 17 hours ago [-]
"Open Source" in this case means "ML models with open weights"
(not my interpretation, it's what the post states - personally that is not what I think of when I read "Open Source")
0928374082 17 hours ago [-]
ML models with open weights? Like, say, Qwen?
scotty79 13 hours ago [-]
Freeware models would be more accurate term, but people went with stronger meme for this one.
17 hours ago [-]
siliconc0w 17 hours ago [-]
Yay another bill modeled after the DMCA, what could go wrong?
echelon 17 hours ago [-]
This is worse than the DMCA because there's no provision for companies that develop or host the tech.
Why the hell can't these legislators keep to punishing the law breakers instead of creating unending legal pitfalls for innovation?
We have laws against murdering people with kitchen knives. Not laws against dinnerware. Williams Sonoma doesn't have to worry about lawsuits for its Guy Degrenne Beau Manoir 20-Piece Flatware Set.
You do realise you are talking about a petition started seven years ago by a small diocese that got less than a thousand signatures?
Retr0id 5 hours ago [-]
Yup!
cowboylowrez 11 hours ago [-]
lol says you, its been my experience that reason.com does NOT post made-up stories, they simply have priorities aligned with their political biases which is relatively normal nowadays. AI agrees.
google:
"Reason.com is a reputable source that adheres to journalistic standards, but its content is filtered through a specific, consistent libertarian lens."
7 hours ago [-]
ErroneousBosh 6 hours ago [-]
Okay, so they're repeating an anti-immigrant neonazi talking point because they're "libertarian". Okay.
cowboylowrez 4 hours ago [-]
can you post the neonazi part? I couldn't find it. if you're uncomfortable posting actual nazi text, post the wordcount that precedes it in the article and I can count the words that precede your neonazi discovery.
xmprt 17 hours ago [-]
I think this title is quite misleading given that it's only impacting open source models which is a very narrow interpretation of open source.
josalhor 15 hours ago [-]
We do have tech that is "behind doors". Just look at military applications (nuclear, tank and jet design etc). Should "clonable voice and video" be behind close doors? Or should AGI be behind close doors? I think that the approach of the suggested legistation may not the right way to go about; but at a certain level of implementation capability I'm not sure how I would handle this situation.
If current tech appeared all of a sudden in 1999; I am sure as a society we would all accept this, but slow boiling frog theory I guess.
mdhb 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
logicchains 16 hours ago [-]
It should be called the anti-AGI bill, because trying to ban AI with certain capabilities is essentially banning embodied AI capable of learning/updating its weights live. The same logic applied to humans would essentially ban all humans, because any human can learn to draw and paint nudes of someone else.
karlgkk 17 hours ago [-]
> voice-conversion RVC model on HuggingFace, and someone else uses it to fake a celebrity, you (the dev) can be liable for statutory damages ($5k-$25k per violation). There is no Section 230 protection here. This effectively makes hosting open weights for audio models a legal suicide mission unless you are OpenAI or Google.
Good.
kouteiheika 16 hours ago [-]
So you'd prefer that only rich megacorporations and criminals have access to this technology, and not normal people and researchers?
renewiltord 16 hours ago [-]
How is that surprising? The advent of modern AI tools has resulted in most people being heavily pro-IP. Everyone now talks about who has the copyright to something and so on.
kouteiheika 15 hours ago [-]
Yes, people are now very pro-IP because it's the big corporations that are pirating stuff and harvesting data en-masse to train their models, and not just some random teenagers in their basements grabbing an mp3 off LimeWire. So now the IP laws, instead of being draconian, are suddenly not adequate.
But what is frustrating to me is that the second order effects of making the law more restrictive will be doing us all a big disfavor. It will not stop this technology, but it will just make it more inaccessible to normal people and put more power into the hands of the big corporations which the "they're stealing our data!" people would like to stop.
Right now I (a random nobody) can go on HuggingFace, download model which is more powerful that anything that was available 6 months ago, and run it locally on my machine, unrestricted and private.
Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing?
So now if you make the model creators liable for misuse of the models, or make the models a derivative work of its training data, or anything along these lines - what do you think will happen? Yep. The model on HuggingFace is gone, and now the only thing you'll have access to is a paywalled, heavily filtered and censored version of it provided by a megacorporation, while the megacorporation itself has internally an unlimited, unfiltered access to that model.
Joel_Mckay 5 hours ago [-]
>Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing?
The models come from overt piracy, and are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. Sure it can be funny, but the poison fruit from a poison tree is always going to be overt piracy.
I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA.
We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3
It is true bubbles driven by the irrational can't be stopped, but one may profit from peoples delusions... and likely get discount GPUs when the economic fiction inevitably implodes. Best of luck =3
beeflet 1 hours ago [-]
We can generate more energy, fabricate more computer chips and collect more water, but the impact on labor will be irreversible.
spencerflem 14 hours ago [-]
Why not? I don’t think normal people have very many good uses for deepfake tech.
scotty79 13 hours ago [-]
Who is normal person? Non-creative? Deepfakes have immense creative potential.
spencerflem 6 hours ago [-]
I don’t really see it to be honest. I feel like their best and most natural use is scams.
Maybe a different comparison you would agree with is Stingrays, the devices that track cell phones. Ideally nobody would have them but as is, I’m glad they’re not easily available to any random person to abuse.
The studios did already rip off Mark Hamill of all people.
Arguing regulatory capture versus overt piracy is a ridiculous premise. The "AI" firms have so much liquid capital now... they could pay the fines indefinitely in districts that constrain damages, and already settled with larger copyright holders like it was just another nuisance fee. =3
Alex2037 16 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rookderby 10 hours ago [-]
Reddit is one of the domains I block using StepenBlack's hosts list [0].
OP replied and there's another in-depth reply to that below it
> I appreciate you citing the specific clauses. You are reading the 'Black Letter Law' correctly, but you are missing the Litigation Reality (how this actually plays out in court). The 'Primarily Designed' Trap: You argue this only targets a specific 'Arnold Bot.' blah blah blah.
I'm not sure what entirely to do about it, but the fact that some providers still release open models is hopeful to me.
Control and consistency, as well as support for specialized workflows is more important, even if it comes at the expense of model quality.
1. AI succeeds and this success is defined by they will be able to raise prices really high
2. AI fails and receives a bailout
But if there are alternatives I can run locally, they can't raise prices as high because at some point I'd rather run stuff locally even if not state of the art. Like personally, USD 200 a month is already too expensive if you ask me.
And the prices can only go up, right?
For the long-term value of a horribly overpriced and debt ridden corporation it matters quite a lot if the catch up of open source to adequate is less than a decade in instead of several decades in some uses and a few more in others.
Either there's a massive reduction of inference and training costs due to new discoveries and then those big hardware hoarders have no moat anymore or nothing new is discovered and they won't be able to scale forward.
Either way it doesn't sound good for them.
If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user. Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US. Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names. There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
It's a stretched metaphor at this point, but I hope that makes sense (:
If these roads had been designed differently, to naturally enforce the desired speeds, it would be a safer road in general and as a side effect be a less desirable getaway route.
Again I agree we're really stretching here, but there is a real common problem where badly designed roads don't just enable but encourage illegal and potentially unsafe driving. Wide, straight, flat roads are fast roads, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If you want low traffic speeds you need roads to be designed to be hostile to high speeds.
But what I was trying to describe is a "mild mannered" getaway driver. Not fleeing from cops, not speeding. Just calmly driving to and from crimes. Should we punish the road makers for enabling such nefarious activity?
(it's a rhetorical question; I'm just trying to clarify the point)
Risk becomes bound to the total value of the company and you can start acting rationally.
The model (pardon) in my mind is like this:
* The forger of the banknote is punished, not the maker of the quill
* The author of the libelous pamphlet is punished, not the maker of the press
* The creep pasting heads onto scandalous bodies is punished, not the author of Photoshop
In this world view, how do we handle users of the magic bag of math? We've scarcely thought before that a tool should police its own use. Maybe, we can say, because it's too easy to do bad things with, it's crossed some nebulous line. But it's hard to argue for that on principle, as it doesn't sit consistently with the more tangible and well-trodden examples.
With respect to the above, all the harms are clearly articulated in the law as specific crimes (forgery, libel, defamation). The square I can't circle with proposals like the one under discussion is that they open the door for authors of tools to be responsible for whatever arbitrary and undiscovered harms await from some unknown future use of their work. That seems like a regressive way of crafting law.
In this case the guy making the images isn't doing anything wrong either.
Why would we punish him for pasting heads onto images, but not punish the artist who supplied the mannequin of Taylor Swift for the music video to Famous?†
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7FCgw_GlWc
Why would we punish someone for drawing us a picture of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother when it's fine to describe him doing it?
(Note that this video, like the recent SNL "Home Alone" sketch, has been censored by YouTube and cannot be viewed anonymously. Do we know why YouTube has recently kicked censorship up to these levels?)
You mean like speed limits, drivers licenses, seat belts, vehicle fitness and specific police for the roads?
I still can't see a legitimate use for anyone cloning anyone else's voice. Yes, satire and fun, but also a bunch of malicious uses as well. The same goes with non-fingerprinted video gen. Its already having a corrosive effect on public trust. Great memes, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure thats worth it.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whB21dr2Hlc
As a former VFX person, I know that a couple of shows are testing out how/where it can be used. (currently its still more expensive than trad VFX, unless you are using it to make base models.)
Productivity gains in the VFX industry over the last 20 years has been immense. (ie a mid budget TV show has more, and more complex VFX work than most movies that are 10 years old, and look better.)
But, does that mean we should allow any bad actor to flood the floor with fake clips of whatever agenda they want to push? no. If I as a VFX enthusiast gets fooled by GenAI videos (Picture area done deal, its super hard to stop reliably) then we are super fucked.
The reason safe harbor clauses externalize risks onto the user is because the user gets the most use (heh) of the software.
No developer is going to accept unbounded risk based on user behavior for a limited reward, especially not if they're working for free.
While both can be misused, to me the latter category seems to afford a far larger set of tertiary/unintended uses.
(shill)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMsveLMdds
Which is of course the European Version, not the evil American Version.
Edit: Also does this mean OpenAI can bring back the Sky voice?
Chinese companies will happy to drive innovation further after Google and OpenAI giants goes on with this to kill competition in the US.
US capitalism eats itself alive with this.
(not my interpretation, it's what the post states - personally that is not what I think of when I read "Open Source")
Why the hell can't these legislators keep to punishing the law breakers instead of creating unending legal pitfalls for innovation?
We have laws against murdering people with kitchen knives. Not laws against dinnerware. Williams Sonoma doesn't have to worry about lawsuits for its Guy Degrenne Beau Manoir 20-Piece Flatware Set.
Don't worry, the UK is on the case https://reason.com/2019/10/07/the-u-k-must-ban-pointy-knives...
I thought this was an exaggeration
google:
"Reason.com is a reputable source that adheres to journalistic standards, but its content is filtered through a specific, consistent libertarian lens."
If current tech appeared all of a sudden in 1999; I am sure as a society we would all accept this, but slow boiling frog theory I guess.
Good.
But what is frustrating to me is that the second order effects of making the law more restrictive will be doing us all a big disfavor. It will not stop this technology, but it will just make it more inaccessible to normal people and put more power into the hands of the big corporations which the "they're stealing our data!" people would like to stop.
Right now I (a random nobody) can go on HuggingFace, download model which is more powerful that anything that was available 6 months ago, and run it locally on my machine, unrestricted and private.
Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing?
So now if you make the model creators liable for misuse of the models, or make the models a derivative work of its training data, or anything along these lines - what do you think will happen? Yep. The model on HuggingFace is gone, and now the only thing you'll have access to is a paywalled, heavily filtered and censored version of it provided by a megacorporation, while the megacorporation itself has internally an unlimited, unfiltered access to that model.
The models come from overt piracy, and are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. Sure it can be funny, but the poison fruit from a poison tree is always going to be overt piracy.
I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA.
We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3
'"Generative AI" is not what you think it is'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo
'"Generative AI" is not what you think it is'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo
And this paper proved the absurd outcome of the bubble is hype:
'Researchers Built a Tiny Economy. AIs Broke It Immediately'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME
It is true bubbles driven by the irrational can't be stopped, but one may profit from peoples delusions... and likely get discount GPUs when the economic fiction inevitably implodes. Best of luck =3
Maybe a different comparison you would agree with is Stingrays, the devices that track cell phones. Ideally nobody would have them but as is, I’m glad they’re not easily available to any random person to abuse.
...and the lawyers win. =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcWv1lHU6I
Arguing regulatory capture versus overt piracy is a ridiculous premise. The "AI" firms have so much liquid capital now... they could pay the fines indefinitely in districts that constrain damages, and already settled with larger copyright holders like it was just another nuisance fee. =3
Here is some background info on the act from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fakes_Act.
[0] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/blob/master/readme.md