Skyrim VAs are speaking out about the spread of pornographic AI mods.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made

    No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they’re structured. They really don’t contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

    and certainly not something that has been tested in court

    Sure, this is brand new tech. It takes time for the court cases to churn their way through the system. If that’s going to be the ultimate arbiter, though, then what’s to discuss in the meantime?

    • IncognitoErgoSum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted. And yes, images and sounds and video stored on a computer are numbers too, but those can be played back or viewed by a human in a meaningful way, and as such represent a work.

      • ChemicalRascal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted.

        Just being “a bunch of numbers” doesn’t stop it from being a work, it doesn’t stop it from being a derivative work, and you absolutely can copyright data – all digitally encoded works are “just data”.

        A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things – in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.

        • IncognitoErgoSum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just being “a bunch of numbers” doesn’t stop it from being a work, it doesn’t stop it from being a derivative work

          I suggest reading my entire comment.

          A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things – in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.

          It’s only a work if your brain is a work. We agree that in a digitized picture, those numbers represent the picture itself and thus constitute a work (which you would have known if you read beyond the first sentence of my comment). The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.