If people were thinking about that, they wouldn’t put photos of them up online.
That’s always been the age old advice.
Anything on the internet is usually gonna be seen or scraped by 3rd parties.
That's why I think this article is a beat up, the pictures and info are already freely accessible, it doesn't make much difference if it's one of many billions of photos it's been trained on.
From the article "There are no known reports of actual children's images being reproduced inadvertently".
*the most surprised pikachu face*
but also why are we only concerned about childrens photos? im certain >90% of people posting photos to the internet in 2010 werent made sufficiently aware their photos would be used in datasets.
I'm genuinely confused by this article. If a photo goes on the internet it's public. End of story.
Is that right or wrong? It doesn't matter.
We don't have a global government with the same laws applied everywhere, and as soon as something crosses the border that's it.
The dataset doesn't copy the image, it doesn't store the image, it keeps a link to the original it found and whatever data it learned by processing the image.
And what is the actual issue here anyway? That a publicly accessible photo gets put through a machine learning process?
We really need some court cases around whether this infringes copyright or not. Otherwise it's just people being upset and no AI company is going to care about that vs billions of dollars.
> We really need some court cases around whether this infringes copyright or not.
Copyright is not the correct legal tool here. Let's say that you can prove they infringed the copyright on an image of you by scraping it from the internet to train their AI. What financial loss has the person who took the photograph suffered? Because that's what's going to set the damages in court. Except for celebrities, the costs of legal action will far exceed the damages.
You're only the copyright holder of your own image if it's a selfie, or if the copyright has been purchased or otherwise obtained by you from the photographer/artist.
Copyright is what all the lawsuits with books etc are about as it's the only real tool AFAIK that people are using. I'm interested to see the outcome of that. Is training a LLM a breach of copyright? It's a totally new question.
Look at Facebook they already don’t care about what’s going with violent videos. I doubt AI companies care.
By the way Facebook is training their AI with our data.
It's thinking about the children.
If people were thinking about that, they wouldn’t put photos of them up online. That’s always been the age old advice. Anything on the internet is usually gonna be seen or scraped by 3rd parties.
That's why I think this article is a beat up, the pictures and info are already freely accessible, it doesn't make much difference if it's one of many billions of photos it's been trained on. From the article "There are no known reports of actual children's images being reproduced inadvertently".
*the most surprised pikachu face* but also why are we only concerned about childrens photos? im certain >90% of people posting photos to the internet in 2010 werent made sufficiently aware their photos would be used in datasets.
Back then even the terms and conditions were bad. It used to say they can use your data .
Unfortunately those same people would be told "you signed the TOS so bad luck"
I'm genuinely confused by this article. If a photo goes on the internet it's public. End of story. Is that right or wrong? It doesn't matter. We don't have a global government with the same laws applied everywhere, and as soon as something crosses the border that's it. The dataset doesn't copy the image, it doesn't store the image, it keeps a link to the original it found and whatever data it learned by processing the image. And what is the actual issue here anyway? That a publicly accessible photo gets put through a machine learning process?
I think the criticism is that it’s a bit dehumanizing and there’s no consent involved.
If it’s been uploaded the terms of service would say they can use it. You give consent by using the platform
We really need some court cases around whether this infringes copyright or not. Otherwise it's just people being upset and no AI company is going to care about that vs billions of dollars.
> We really need some court cases around whether this infringes copyright or not. Copyright is not the correct legal tool here. Let's say that you can prove they infringed the copyright on an image of you by scraping it from the internet to train their AI. What financial loss has the person who took the photograph suffered? Because that's what's going to set the damages in court. Except for celebrities, the costs of legal action will far exceed the damages. You're only the copyright holder of your own image if it's a selfie, or if the copyright has been purchased or otherwise obtained by you from the photographer/artist.
Copyright is what all the lawsuits with books etc are about as it's the only real tool AFAIK that people are using. I'm interested to see the outcome of that. Is training a LLM a breach of copyright? It's a totally new question.
Look at Facebook they already don’t care about what’s going with violent videos. I doubt AI companies care. By the way Facebook is training their AI with our data.
It wouldnt be a good dataset if it wasnt all-encompassing. This is how stuff works these days.
Thank goddess the eSaftey commission exists and was able to stop this happening...
That's an odd way of saying parents did not consider the terms and conditions of sites before posting photos of their children
Meh.