undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmrweasel2y ago0 comments

It's going to be hard to remove every single "shorthand descriptions of well-known entities" or other prompts that can be used to generate copyrighted or trademarked content. Sure, if you're not deliberately trying to generate infringing content, you can probably remove or discard those results, the trouble is the people who will try to trick the AI to generate this content, blocking those people is going to be impossible, without excluding any copyrighted or trademarked training material.

Another issue for generative AI is mentioned in the article: "Systems like DALL-E and ChatGPT are essentially black boxes." What happens when an AI is used to make decisions where the user/victim is entitled to know exactly why the AI did what it did? From a business and legal perspective I think the current AI solutions are dangerous and should be used very sparsely, exactly because even the creators can't point to the exact pieces of information that caused the AI to make the choices it did.

0 comments

4 comments · 4 top-level

keiferski2y ago

But does this actually matter if the people are only generating images for their own use? Does Photoshop prevent people from making drawings that look like Mickey Mouse? Of course not.

I think it will be easy to prevent the obvious copyrighted stuff via the method I mentioned. People going around those restrictions are subject to the same rules as someone drawing the copyrighted image from scratch.

2 more replies

numpad02y ago

I don't understand why some peoole thinks any infringing content can be singled out and removed.

Aren't LLMs giant coefficient matrices like, a punched out croissant dough, made of all training data plyed over? How can you say you can remove one specific ply out of dough and declare that ever potential effect that the offending ply had created is now completely removed?

3 more replies

bbor2y ago

  What happens when an AI is used to make decisions where the user/victim is entitled to know exactly why the AI did what it did? From a business and legal perspective I think the current AI solutions are dangerous and should be used very sparsely, exactly because even the creators can't point to the exact pieces of information that caused the AI to make the choices it did.

I totally agree that we need explainability (probably through symbolic systems, not fancier models), but I think you’re overestimating how much more satisfying explanations from more traditional AI are. “My rules told me to do X” is a bit more helpful for a troubleshooting engineer than “my training data trained me to do X”, but from a ‘business and legal perspective’ the difference is much less pronounced IMO.

Both answers mean you did something wrong in creating the machine. The fault will always lie with the creator.

losvedir2y ago

Ironically, I don't think it would be that hard with LLMs. I tried asking ChatGPT to describe what copyrighted characters each description is alluding to and it had no problem doing so.[0]

[0] https://chat.openai.com/share/e8256470-8e45-4f36-9c84-026be1...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse