Technology

31 readers

1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

Anger from voice actors as NSFW mods use AI deepfakes to replicate their voices: 'This is NOT okay' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] IncognitoErgoSum@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ChemicalRascal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I suggest reading my entire comment.

I did, buddy. You're just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be "just data". Again, we're not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.

It's only a work if your brain is a work. (...) 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.

Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that's a hot take -- it's not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.

You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn't been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?

Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It's a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn't a person, it isn't an intelligence, it's essentially part of a program, and it's the output of labour performed by someone.

The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can't be a work. That's not... coherent. You've jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is "human brain has neurons". Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can't copyright it? I can't patent it?

No, that's absurd.