FaceDeer

If California passes major restrictions on AI training then I think AI guys would very much want to be anywhere else.

There are already plenty of places to go. Major centers of AI activity include the UK, France, Israel, China and Canada. Many of the top AI companies aren't headquartered in California even if they're US-based.

AI's future in California hangs in the balance.

Again, it's fundamentally the same thing. You're just using different tools to perform the same action.

I remember back in the day when software patents were the big boogeyman of the Internet that everyone hated, and the phrase "...with a computer" was treated with great derision. People were taking out huge numbers of patents that were basically the same as things people had been doing since time immemorial but by adding the magical "...with a computer" suffix on it they were treating it like some completely new innovation.

Suddenly we're on the other side of that?

Anyway, even if you do throw that distinction in you still end up outlawing huge swathes of things that we've depended on for years. Search engines as the most obvious example.

That's the same thing. Whatever you want to call it, "copyright" or some other word, the end result is that you're wanting to give people the right to control other people's ability to analyze the things that they see on public display. And control what general concepts other people put into future works.

I really don't see how going in that direction is going to lead to a better situation than we have now. Frankly it looks more like a path to a nightmarish corporate-controlled dystopia to me.

Setting aside the hypocrisy, there's simply no "service" to DDoS here. There's hardly even a tool. According to the article:

Hönig told Ars that breaking Glaze was "simple." His team found that "low-effort and 'off-the-shelf' techniques"—such as image upscaling, "using a different finetuning script" when training AI on new data, or "adding Gaussian noise to the images before training"—"are sufficient to create robust mimicry methods that significantly degrade existing protections."

So automatically running a couple of basic Photoshop tools on the image will do it.

I had to check the date on this article because I'm not sure why it's suddenly news, these techniques for neutralizing Glaze have been mentioned since Glaze itself was first introduced. Maybe Hönig just formalized it?

That would "help" by basically introducing the concept of copyright to styles and ideas, which I think would likely have more devastating consequences to art than any AI could possibly inflict.

Now taking bets on how long it will be before Cloudflare announces that they're selling AI training datasets based off of the content they're managing...

Especially because seeing the same information in different contexts helps mapping the links between the different contexts and helps dispel incorrect assumptions.

Yes, but this is exactly the point of deduplication - you don't want identical inputs, you want variety. If you want the AI to understand the concept of cats you don't keep showing it the same picture of a cat over and over, all that tells it is that you want exactly that picture. You show it a whole bunch of different pictures whose only commonality is that there's a cat in it, and then the AI can figure out what "cat" means.

They need to fundamentally change big parts of how learning happens and how the algorithm learns to fix this conflict.

Why do you think this?

There actually isn't a downside to de-duplicating data sets, overfitting is simply a flaw. Generative models aren't supposed to "memorize" stuff - if you really want a copy of an existing picture there are far easier and more reliable ways to accomplish that than giant GPU server farms. These models don't derive any benefit from drilling on the same subset of data over and over. It makes them less creative.

I want to normalize the notion that copyright isn't an all-powerful fundamental law of physics like so many people seem to assume these days, and if I can get big companies like Meta to throw their resources behind me in that argument then all the better.

Remember when piracy communities thought that the media companies were wrong to sue switch manufacturers because of that?

It baffles me that there's such an anti-AI sentiment going around that it would cause even folks here to go "you know, maybe those litigious copyright cartels had the right idea after all."

We should be cheering that we've got Meta on the side of fair use for once.

look up sample recover attacks.

Look up "overfitting." It's a flaw in generative AI training that modern AI trainers have done a great deal to resolve, and even in the cases of overfitting it's not all of the training data that gets "memorized." Only the stuff that got hammered into the AI thousands of times in error.

You get out ahead of the locomotive knowing that most of the directions you go aren't going to pan out. The point is that the guy who happens to pick correctly will win big by getting out there first. Nothing wrong with making the attempt and getting it wrong, as long as you factored that risk in (as McDonalds' seems to have done given that this hasn't harmed them).