I think it's a bit more complicated than that. This could pave de way to getting rid of a lot of handicaps and diseases, not to mention fdvr. I care about monkeys, I just care more about paraplegics for instance.
Jaded
joined 2 years ago
Really easy to see where this is going.
"open source image synthesis technologies such as Stable Diffusion allow the creation of AI-generated pornography with ease, and a large community has formed around tools and add-ons that enhance this ability. Since these AI models are openly available and often run locally, there are sometimes no guardrails preventing someone from creating sexualized images of children, and that has rung alarm bells among the nation's top prosecutors. (It's worth noting that Midjourney, DALL-E, and Adobe Firefly all have built-in filters that bar the creation of pornographic content.)"
Paid software that can be reined it so it doesn't compete with Netflix and disney is fine, the open source stuff is satan spawn.
The easy solution would be to go after the ones that distribute the pictures, this is only about keeping the gravy train going.
There's different ways to automate it. There was a thread a while back where someone outlined their system. He kept the free Spotify account and had a script that checked it every week for his new recommended playlists, then it would download it automatically. He used an other software to host the library.
Google literally considers itself an ad company. They have a huge framework meant to profit off of ads shown on other products and platforms. They sell data as a service to better target consumers for advertisement. It's not comparable to a tv channel.
I just haven't seen any talk of legislation that wouldn't harm the small players and us, the consumers.
I'd like to see legislation so the windfall profits from AI (and our economy in general) is shared more equally. Stifling AI directly is just bad news imo.
Most legislation being pushed seems to concern the use of scraped copyrighted material in the training data. There is no open source software like stable diffusion and the llama llm if this data becomes unavailable to them. This would put companies like google, microsoft and adobe at an insane advantage since they already own all that data.
Big corporations are fueling the concern. The more restrictions that come out on it, the harder it is for small and open source developers to join in.
Legislations just widen their moat, nothing else.
Anyone know what they mean when they ask for protection from AI? Voice synth is going to be very big for video games seeing the massive amount of NPCs certain games have. I don't think Microsoft is the kind to play ball and limit what they can do with AI
"Most of the data used by large companies isn’t available to the majority of people. We think that stifles innovation."
Yes crowd sourcing is a solution but is only really possible if you are able to reach many people like Mozilla can. They only have 20k of hours up to date. Tortoise needed 50k hours and was made by one guy who open sourced it. He would not have been able to build without scraping YouTube.
Crowd sourcing also becomes much more complicated for llms or if you are making models in other language.
Making llms requires a stupid amount of data, much more than what is found in the creative commons. Same goes for image gen. Unless you have been accumulating data since forever through tricking people when they sign up to your website or app, you can't train anything without scraping most of the data.
It has nothing to do with licensing but the fact that there just isn't enough "free-use" data.
Anything else is going to bite US in the ass. Asking for consent kills any kind of open source development. It puts AI solely in the hands of like three companies. Our economy is going to be very AI focused in the future, they would literally own all of us.
You aren't getting paid either way so we might as well all enjoy the fruits of humanities labor freely instead of been forced into a subscription model of it.
What do you think "someone who has no legal right to be there" is a reference too? When would a citizen not have the legal right to be in his own country? How often have you heard of a citizen being deported from his own country? It's literally against international law.