Comment by verdverm
3 years ago
> the only way to fix them...
This kind of claim is almost always suspect. There was a time that rotating or other manipulations caused issues for the models and those were largely taimed. Hinton's work with Capsule Networks [1] produced much more resilient models, though they are computationally much more intensive.
It's also interesting that this is coming from Japan, where they also have a law regarding copyright and training that is very permissive. [2]
> That said, it's kind of bonkers to me that publishing an image with alterations like this might be considered illegal, particularly if an image is being published by the copyright holder. It's like saying you can't watermark anything you publish.
This should be generally true, but in law, intent typically matters. If you are doing something with the primary reason being to cause harm, then normal protections often don't apply.
[1] https://blog.paperspace.com/capsule-networks/
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-art-wars-japan-says-185350...
"If you are doing something with the primary reason being to cause harm, then normal protections often don't apply."
This seems pretty confused. There is no law banning "harm" (A term so vague that everyone is guilty.) and even if there was watermarking images does not appear to be more "harmful" than making an AI using the copyrighted images of others without permission.
Good point on intent. I have to think if an artist published poisoned images, with a notice like, "don't use these for training, they're poisoned, contact me for licensing of clean images", it would be hard to argue either negligence or malicious intent to disrupt training.
Which would be distinct from one silently poisoning and reposting images everywhere with the goal of gumming up everyone's training.
I think the intent is what's most likely to cause trouble.
yup, that's why there is a difference between manslaughter and murder of varying degrees