Comment by Ukv
3 years ago
I think people 100% have the right to use this on their images, but:
> simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use
Currently it's generally infeasible to obtain licenses at the required scale.
When attempting to develop a model that can describe photos for visually impaired users, I had even tried to reach out to obtain a license from Getty. They repeatedly told me that they don't license images for machine learning[0].
I think it's easy to say "well too bad, it doesn't deserve to exist" if you're just thinking about DALL-E 3, but there's a huge number of positive and far less-controversial applications of machine learning that benefit from web-scale pretraining and foundation models - spam filtering, tumour segmentation, voice transcription, language translation, defect detection, etc.
I don't believe it's a "doesn't deserve to exist" situation, because these things genuinely can be used for the public good.
However - and this is a big however - I don't believe it deserves the legal protection to be used for profit.
I am of the opinion that if you train your model on data that you do not hold the rights for, your usage should be handled similarly to most fair use laws. It's fine to use it for your personal projects, for research and education, etc. but it is not OK to use it for commercial endeavors.
> It's fine to use it for your personal projects, for research and education, etc. but it is not OK to use it for commercial endeavors.
Say I train a machine vision model that, after having pretrained on ImageNet or similar, detects deformities in a material for a small company that manufactures that material. Do you not think that would be fair use, despite being commercial?
To me it seems highly transformative (a defect detection model is entirely outside the original images' purposes) and does not at all impact the market of the works.
Moreover, you said it was "Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology" but it seems there are at least some models (like if my above detector was non-commercial) that you're ethically okay with and could be affected by this poisoning.
No, I don't generally think it's okay to profit off of the work of others without their consent.
>Moreover, you said it was "Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology" but it seems there are at least some models (like if my above detector was non-commercial) that you're ethically okay with and could be affected by this poisoning.
Just because I think there are situations where it's not ethically wrong to use someone's work without permission does not mean I think it's ethically wrong for someone to protect their work any way they see fit.
To use an extreme example: I do not think it's wrong for a starving man to steal food. I also do not think it's wrong for someone to defend their food from being stolen, regardless of the morality of the thieves' motivation.
1 reply →