←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
MgB2 ◴[] No.43574927[source]
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input?

I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new.

In the end, other than for copyright-washing, why wouldn't I just use the original movie still/photo in the first place?

replies(13): >>43575052 #>>43575080 #>>43575231 #>>43576085 #>>43576153 #>>43577026 #>>43577350 #>>43578381 #>>43578512 #>>43578581 #>>43579012 #>>43579408 #>>43582494 #
Lerc ◴[] No.43577350[source]
I'm not sure if this is a problem with overfitting. I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details, it just seems that it's generating images from that knowledge in cases where that isn't appropriate.

I wonder if it's a fine tuning issue where people have overly provided archetypes of the thing that they were training towards. That would be the fastest way for the model to learn the idea but it may also mean the model has implicitly learned to provide not just an instance of a thing but a known archetype of a thing. I'm guessing in most RLHF tests archetypes (regardless of IP status) score quite highly.

replies(2): >>43577418 #>>43578184 #
vkou ◴[] No.43578184[source]
> I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details,

ClosedAI doesn't seem to be OK with it, because they are explicitly censoring characters of more popular IPs. Presumably as a fig leaf against accusations of theft.

replies(2): >>43579972 #>>43584259 #
red75prime ◴[] No.43579972[source]
If you define feeding of copyrighted material into a non-human learning machine as theft, then sure. Anything that mitigates legal consequences will be a fig leaf.

The question is "should we define it as such?"

replies(2): >>43580279 #>>43582912 #
vkou ◴[] No.43580279{3}[source]
If a graphics design company was using human artists to do the same thing that OpenAI is, they'd be sued out of existence.

But because a computer, and not a human does it, they get to launder their responsibility.

replies(1): >>43580470 #
red75prime ◴[] No.43580470{4}[source]
Doing what? Telling their artists to create what they want regardless of copyright and then filtering the output?

For humans it doesn't make sense because we have generation and filtering in a single package.

replies(1): >>43585871 #
1. vkou ◴[] No.43585871{5}[source]
In this case the output wasn't filtered. They are just producing images of Harrison Ford, and I don't think they are allowed to use his likeness in that way.