I, ChatGPT
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin Research is one thing. Actively deploying adversarial images to try to screw up real-world AIs is another, and speed limits are a prefect example of why. If you confused a self-driving car into thinking it had the right to go 70 in a residential neighborhood, and something went wrong, the blood would be on your hands.
Sure sure. And if someone posts these images on their website, together with an article describing the research, then the scrapers come along and incorporate that shit into their models without asking, they're violating copyright and you want to blame the researchers instead.
The fix is simple: stop using unlicensed images.Once again, the question no one wants to answer: where does any requirement exist to obtain a license for learning?
In the fucking license agreement god fucking dammit. Did you even read it? On almost all image-publishing websites, you are expressly disallowed to use the picture for any purpose other than viewing it yourself, and only yourself, and only for personal enjoyment and no other reason. You cannot save it, you cannot send it to anyone (except as a link), you cannot edit it, you cannot do anything. And in particular - as listed in a separate bullet point - you are prohibited from using any automation tools to access the image by any other means than physically clicking your mouse (or hitting enter, or touching the screen) to open the link.
It's not their fault everyone routinely ignores copyright everywhere.
Licensing agreements are not copyright. They're mostly unenforceable, and in a sane world without Vernor v Autodesk they would be entirely unenforceable, and rightfully so.
Claiming "you need a license to learn from this because the license says you do" is the rhetorical equivalent to picking yourself up: even though you can describe the concept in words, it doesn't work in reality.
-
@Mason_Wheeler you need a license to copy the image to make your AI model learn from it. How do you plan feeding the AI model without first copying the image?
-
@Gustav The word "copy" is not a magic incantation that turns something into a copyright issue. You're stepping on legal notions of ephemeral copies that have been well-understood for over 30 years, without which the World Wide Web could not exist at all.
-
A hypothetical question: How would DRM factor into this? We technically have the ability to verify that something is being displayed (and only displayed) with the end-to-end DRM plumbing that big corpo has been pushing on everybody. This should make it possible to develop a system where an encrypted image can only be decrypted to be viewed on a display.
Clearly, big corps will have the ability to bypass this technically (fuck with the drivers/OS or make a device that looks HDCP correct, but isn't a display). But they'd have to -in essence- break the very thing they've been fighting for the best part of a decade or two. That would amuse me.
-
@LaoC The AI knows what you really want to see.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav The word "copy" is not a magic incantation that turns something into a copyright issue.
No, but the act of reproduction is, regardless of how you call it.
You're stepping on legal notions of ephemeral copies
But how do you even obtain the ephemeral copy. You aren't even allowed to access the website in means suitable for AI models. I'll grant you it's not copyright anymore we're talking about. But you're still breaking the website's TOS. You shouldn't be allowed to do what you want to do anyway. You are only given access to the images on the condition that you will not automate the process.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Oh come on! This one's closer than the ones I managed to get out of it, I'll admit, but that's still clearly not a copy, "lossy" or otherwise. Not when Lisa's most famous attribute, her mysterious smile, is so visibly different.
So it's a 99% copy? Because it clearly is a copy. You still haven't defined where to draw the line.
Because your "line" is irrelevant. Now that we've established that AIs can't create actual copies in the first place,
I think you mean now that we have established that they can.
let's move on to the actual issue that the Luddites are using "it's a big copy machine" as a shield for: the actual use case for generative AI. Because aside from people specifically trying, for whatever reason, to prove it's possible to find a way to twist an AI's arm into producing a "close copy," nobody is doing this.
Ah yes, at least you admitted it's possible.
And why would they? Why would you want to ask an AI for an image of the Mona Lisa when you can get an exact replication from going to the Wikipedia article? Why would anyone want that?
That is so nonsensical it borders on intentionally dense.
They can only get the exact copy because the Mona Lisa, as an example, is in the public domain. That doesn't apply to all the other things that have been used without a license. That's the point.The real issue is that an AI can learn from existing work and produce new work that is similar.
Or launder away the copyright of something you want to use without paying for the license.
"I need this piece of software. I could either pay Oracle a fortune, or use this copy-left version that's GPL'd. But I don't want to comply with the GPL. I could go to the immense expense of clean-room reverse-engineering it, or I could just ask ChatGPT tochange the license statementreproduce it."Do you remember when Photoshop came out, and a lot of existing photo artists made a big uproar about how using Photoshop is "cheating" because it makes image editing "too easy" and anyone who used it didn't deserve to be called a real artist? Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Because we always see this exact same circus, and it always turns out to be nothing. Today, Photoshop is simply the default; if you create digital art, everyone assumes that you had help from Photoshop to do it, and no one sees anything wrong with that. In another 10 years, generative AI will be the default in exactly the same way.
And if Photoshop came with a library of digital assets, then Adobe would license those assets instead of just saying "it's a creative tool, get used to it".
I didn't say they're identical, stop making shit up. If you think a court of law, in a hypothetical scenario where the Mona Lisa wasn't in the public domain, wouldn't rule that this is clearly a derived work, fair use or not, arguing with you is completely pointless.
No, I think that in a court of law this would never get brought up in the first place, because no one is using generative AI to produce copies.
You fail to understand a hypothetical and then claim something that's factually false, as has just been demonstrated, in one sentence. Amazing.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
like a burglar suing you for eating moldy left-overs in your fridge. Extremely fucking retarded.
This... happens. And people can actually win those.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
And if Photoshop came with a library of digital assets, then Adobe would license those assets instead of just saying "it's a creative tool, get used to it".
That's actually a very good real life example.
It wasn't even a year(edit) It's been just over a year since Photoshop users LOST THEIR COLORS because Adobe's license for Pantone catalog expired.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav The word "copy" is not a magic incantation that turns something into a copyright issue.
No, but the act of reproduction is, regardless of how you call it.
You're stepping on legal notions of ephemeral copies
But how do you even obtain the ephemeral copy. You aren't even allowed to access the website in means suitable for AI models. I'll grant you it's not copyright anymore we're talking about.
Thank you.
But you're still breaking the website's TOS.
So what? TOS is a joke.
You shouldn't be allowed to do what you want to do anyway.
Yes, you really should. Once again, one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted. A TOS has no legal validity; it's just someone arbitrarily saying "I don't want you doing these things and if you do them anyway I'll be unhappy." It's possible that they may put technical enforcement measures in place that give rise to a CFAA claim if you get the right judge on the right phase of the moon, but that's about it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
In fact, I've argued exactly this point. And they're not preventing them from learning with this. They're just not getting what they want out of it. I'm sure the AI scrapers will figure this stuff out soon enough.
Probably, but do we really want to set off an arms race in this space?
Arguably that's precisely what we want, as competition is healthy, right?
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Oh come on! This one's closer than the ones I managed to get out of it, I'll admit, but that's still clearly not a copy, "lossy" or otherwise. Not when Lisa's most famous attribute, her mysterious smile, is so visibly different.
So it's a 99% copy? Because it clearly is a copy. You still haven't defined where to draw the line.
Because your "line" is irrelevant. Now that we've established that AIs can't create actual copies in the first place,
I think you mean now that we have established that they can.
let's move on to the actual issue that the Luddites are using "it's a big copy machine" as a shield for: the actual use case for generative AI. Because aside from people specifically trying, for whatever reason, to prove it's possible to find a way to twist an AI's arm into producing a "close copy," nobody is doing this.
Ah yes, at least you admitted it's possible.
And why would they? Why would you want to ask an AI for an image of the Mona Lisa when you can get an exact replication from going to the Wikipedia article? Why would anyone want that?
That is so nonsensical it borders on intentionally dense.
They can only get the exact copy because the Mona Lisa, as an example, is in the public domain. That doesn't apply to all the other things that have been used without a license. That's the point.And who is doing this?
The real issue is that an AI can learn from existing work and produce new work that is similar.
Or launder away the copyright of something you want to use without paying for the license.
No one is doing this. No one is complaining about people doing this, because no one is doing it. People are complaining about being replaced by machines. And they're enlisting people like you as useful idiots to push claims that they're very carefully not actually making. Like this one.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
In fact, I've argued exactly this point. And they're not preventing them from learning with this. They're just not getting what they want out of it. I'm sure the AI scrapers will figure this stuff out soon enough.
Probably, but do we really want to set off an arms race in this space?
Arguably that's precisely what we want, as competition is healthy, right?
Competition between person A and person B trying to do the same thing better than each other is healthy. Competition between person A trying to do a thing and person B trying to stop them from doing that thing is not healthy; it's a waste of resources that could be put to productive use rather than being thrown away on a pointless arms race.
-
@Mason_Wheeler unlike useless idiots, like you.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
But you're still breaking the website's TOS.
So what? TOS is a joke.
TOS has way more legal standing than any copyright ever had. But I will give you that everyone everywhere ignores it. That said, it's not the owner's fault everyone everywhere ignores it, so you can hardly blame the owner for protecting themselves against those who break their TOS.
A TOS has no legal validity; it's just someone arbitrarily saying "I don't want you doing these things and if you do them anyway I'll be unhappy."
That someone is the person offering their service. You are not born entitled to their service. You are granted the service by agreeing to the terms. If you break the terms, you lose the right to access the service. Just because it's technically impossible to effectively block you off doesn't mean that blocking you off would violate your rights.
You shouldn't be allowed to do what you want to do anyway.
Yes, you really should. Once again, one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted.
But you literally are forbidden. Unless you mean to say that blocking someone from a free website is itself illegal?
Another hypothetical, more relevant to the topic. Would it be illegal to knowingly give a wrong answer on StackOverflow? If not, why would it be illegal to knowingly give a wrong image to OpenAI?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Not when Lisa's most famous attribute, her mysterious smile, is so visibly different.
Filed under: Xerox changing numbers in copies
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
But you're still breaking the website's TOS.
So what? TOS is a joke.
TOS has way more legal standing than any copyright ever had.
Under what legal principle? I've never heard this.
A TOS has no legal validity; it's just someone arbitrarily saying "I don't want you doing these things and if you do them anyway I'll be unhappy."
That someone is the person offering their service. You are not born entitled to their service. You are granted the service by agreeing to the terms. If you break the terms, you lose the right to access the service. Just because it's technically impossible to effectively block you off doesn't mean that blocking you off would violate your rights.
If something is freely available to anyone without any form of access control, then it's freely available to anyone without any form of access control. Period. This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
You shouldn't be allowed to do what you want to do anyway.
Yes, you really should. Once again, one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted.
But you literally are forbidden.
Someone can say "I forbid it" until they're blue in the face, but unless their forbidding is backed by some actual legal principle, everyone else is perfectly free to ignore it.
Another hypothetical, more relevant to the topic. Would it be illegal to knowingly give a wrong answer on StackOverflow? If not, why would it be illegal to knowingly give a wrong image to OpenAI?
Not necessarily, but possibly, if done maliciously to interfere with a competitor's business. This is exactly the sort of thing that the concept of tortious interference exists for.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
If something is freely available to anyone without any form of access control, then it's freely available to anyone without any form of access control. Period. This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
But somehow they're required to provide stuff to these people in a way that their software can understand in a particular way?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
In fact, I've argued exactly this point. And they're not preventing them from learning with this. They're just not getting what they want out of it. I'm sure the AI scrapers will figure this stuff out soon enough.
Probably, but do we really want to set off an arms race in this space?
Arguably that's precisely what we want, as competition is healthy, right?
Competition between person A and person B trying to do the same thing better than each other is healthy. Competition between person A trying to do a thing and person B trying to stop them from doing that thing is not healthy; it's a waste of resources that could be put to productive use rather than being thrown away on a pointless arms race.
.... Then why is adversarial AI used for training? I think I've lost the context in all the drivel.
-
@boomzilla We've already been over this. There's a difference between "required to do a specific thing" and "forbidden to do a specific thing." The former is far more coercive, which is probably why people making disingenuous arguments like to disguise the latter as the former so much.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
In fact, I've argued exactly this point. And they're not preventing them from learning with this. They're just not getting what they want out of it. I'm sure the AI scrapers will figure this stuff out soon enough.
Probably, but do we really want to set off an arms race in this space?
Arguably that's precisely what we want, as competition is healthy, right?
Competition between person A and person B trying to do the same thing better than each other is healthy. Competition between person A trying to do a thing and person B trying to stop them from doing that thing is not healthy; it's a waste of resources that could be put to productive use rather than being thrown away on a pointless arms race.
.... Then why is adversarial AI used for training? I think I've lost the context in all the drivel.
Because adversarial input exists. Because whether we want one or not, there is an arms race and training systems need to be aware of it and able to respond to it. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing for it to exist, or a productive use of resources, or that escalating it should be encouraged.
"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" -- Luke 17:1
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla We've already been over this.
Yes, and it hasn't gotten any more persuasive any of the times you've talked about it.
There's a difference between "required to do a specific thing" and "forbidden to do a specific thing." The former is far more coercive, which is probably why people making disingenuous arguments like to disguise the latter as the former so much.
So what's your excuse?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
like a burglar suing you for eating moldy left-overs in your fridge. Extremely fucking retarded.
This... happens. And people can actually win those.
Your fridge violates the Geneva convention.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" -- Luke 17:1
Oh goody, we're quoting scriptures now, that'll show them!
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
But that doesn't mean it's a good thing for it to exist, or a productive use of resources, or that escalating it should be encouraged.
I'd imagine your world must be terrible boring...
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
like a burglar suing you for eating moldy left-overs in your fridge. Extremely fucking retarded.
This... happens. And people can actually win those.
Your fridge violates the Geneva convention.
Hey now, I didn't force people to eat that, why am I being sued?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
A TOS has no legal validity; it's just someone arbitrarily saying "I don't want you doing these things and if you do them anyway I'll be unhappy."
That someone is the person offering their service. You are not born entitled to their service. You are granted the service by agreeing to the terms. If you break the terms, you lose the right to access the service. Just because it's technically impossible to effectively block you off doesn't mean that blocking you off would violate your rights.
If something is freely available to anyone without any form of access control, then it's freely available to anyone without any form of access control. Period.
Honest question: do you think Google selectively blocking users they suspect of botting, might violate any laws? Because they are the archetype of a free service available to everyone, and they do in fact selectively block users they suspect of botting.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Honest question: do you think Google selectively blocking users they suspect of botting, might violate any laws? Because they are the archetype of a free service available to everyone, and they do in fact selectively block users they suspect of botting.
Can you be a bit more specific? What exactly is "Google" here — they run literally hundreds of free services available to everyone — and what "botting" are people being blocked over? Because "botting" is a term typically used to refer to people using scripts to gain competitive advantages in online gaming in ways that others consider cheating, which isn't something that applies at all to any of Google's most prominent services. (How do you "bot" to cheat at Google Search? Or Gmail?)
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps? Even if it's a big, high, secure fence?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps? Even if it's a big, high, secure fence?
What if, instead of this booby trap straw man, it's something that looks like real money but isn't actually valuable?
-
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Honest question: do you think Google selectively blocking users they suspect of botting, might violate any laws? Because they are the archetype of a free service available to everyone, and they do in fact selectively block users they suspect of botting.
Can you be a bit more specific? What exactly is "Google" here
Google Search. The google.com.
and what "botting" are people being blocked over?
I've been experimenting with Advanced REST Client one time and instead of search results I've been getting an error message about suspected bot activity and to contact Google if it's in error.
How do you "bot" to cheat at Google Search?
Well, not cheat, but I did literally use a bot to (try and fail to) access Google Search, which is against TOS apparently.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
Yes, you've proved quite resilient to any sort of logic here and instead of finding the useful part of an analogy you look for any reason to dismiss it, including by adding information like "counterfeiting."
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps?
Depends on jurisdiction. I know a case where a homeowner got sentenced for booby-trapping the inside of his locked down basement after a burglar broke in through a window.
So back to the question you didn't answer. Would you change your position about illegality of serving adversarial AI images if the service serving adversarial AI images required free registration?
-
@Gustav free registration to put the images up there or free registration to view the images?
See, I can well imagine a use case where artists make pictures, run them through Nightshade and then upload them to deviantArt or whatever.
And of course the presumption that the people who will mostly use this service aren't artists trying to protect their work because they're trying to protect their souls.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
Yes, you've proved quite resilient to any sort of logic here and instead of finding the useful part of an analogy you look for any reason to dismiss it, including by adding information like "counterfeiting."
What do you mean? You asked about someone putting out "something that looks like real money but isn't actually valuable" for other people to find. What is that, if not counterfeit money?
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav free registration to put the images up there or free registration to view the images?
View. Tumblr definitely does this since like 5 years ago. I have vague recollections of DA locking at least some content behind registration.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
Yes, you've proved quite resilient to any sort of logic here and instead of finding the useful part of an analogy you look for any reason to dismiss it, including by adding information like "counterfeiting."
What do you mean? You asked about someone putting out "something that looks like real money but isn't actually valuable" for other people to find. What is that, if not counterfeit money?
Monopoly money?
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Tumblr definitely does this since like 5 years ago
Tumblr has changed owners since then and in any case it's often at the blog owner's discretion not the entire service.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
Yes, you've proved quite resilient to any sort of logic here and instead of finding the useful part of an analogy you look for any reason to dismiss it, including by adding information like "counterfeiting."
What do you mean? You asked about someone putting out "something that looks like real money but isn't actually valuable" for other people to find. What is that, if not counterfeit money?
Monopoly money?
knockoffs of the Mona Lisa?
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps?
Depends on jurisdiction. I know a case where a homeowner got sentenced for booby-trapping the inside of his locked down basement after a burglar broke in through a window.
I don't actually know of any jurisdiction where he wouldn't, because, as I explained
, booby traps don't only catch criminals. They can also affect unsuspecting people who have lawful reasons to be there. (If you set a trap for burglars and it ends up killing a fireman, you're in big trouble, which is why you shouldn't be setting the traps in the first place.)So back to the question you didn't answer.
That was my answer: it's still a booby trap even if you have a secure fence around it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps?
Depends on jurisdiction. I know a case where a homeowner got sentenced for booby-trapping the inside of his locked down basement after a burglar broke in through a window.
I don't actually know of any jurisdiction where he wouldn't, because, as I explained
, booby traps don't only catch criminals.Explained?
I had to take a guess which way you expected me to answer your rhetorical question, and thanks to my autism I guessed wrong. So fuck you for pretending to explain but doing the exact opposite.So back to the question you didn't answer.
That was my answer: it's still a booby trap even if you have a secure fence around it.
Okay so why did you even mention registration and paywall if neither registration nor paywall changes anything?
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
So fuck you for pretending to explain but doing the exact opposite.
I see you've met @Mason-Wheeler
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
This is why things like paywalls and registration walls exist, to turn (entirely meaningless) TOSs into technical measures that have to be actively bypassed, thereby setting up a potential CFAA claim.
No, that's not it. Registration exists to harvest personal data. Paywalls exist to literally get paid.
But let's say you are right on this. DeviantArt, Tumblr etc. require a registered account to access most of their content, unlike some other websites that don't. Do you think it changes their legal position re: serving adversarial AI images?
Does putting a fence around your house change your legal position re: booby traps?
Depends on jurisdiction. I know a case where a homeowner got sentenced for booby-trapping the inside of his locked down basement after a burglar broke in through a window.
I don't actually know of any jurisdiction where he wouldn't, because, as I explained
, booby traps don't only catch criminals.Explained?
I had to take a guess which way you expected me to answer your rhetorical question, and thanks to my autism I guessed wrong. So fuck you for pretending to explain but doing the exact opposite.The
indicates that the explanation in question was further upthread, and not in this post.So back to the question you didn't answer.
That was my answer: it's still a booby trap even if you have a secure fence around it.
Okay so why did you even mention registration and paywall if neither registration nor paywall changes anything?
Neither registration nor paywall changes anything about sabotage or tortious interference. What they do change is providing a clear barrier that, if circumvented, can give rise to a CFAA claim, as I explained.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Counterfeiting is also illegal. Not sure how it's relevant to the conversation, though.
Yes, you've proved quite resilient to any sort of logic here and instead of finding the useful part of an analogy you look for any reason to dismiss it, including by adding information like "counterfeiting."
What do you mean? You asked about someone putting out "something that looks like real money but isn't actually valuable" for other people to find. What is that, if not counterfeit money?
As said, could be monopoly money. There are promotional things that get put out that look a lot like money. Jokes. Lots of ways, especially if you're not looking too closely, could be mistaken for money. But that's not the point.
The point is that there's something out there that someone thinks is valuable to their business, but then it's not. And it was never offered as valuable to their business, and no one was pushing the negative value stuff upon the business...they're doing that to themselves.
It's like going to a horse pasture for an easter egg hunt and then getting upset that you picked up manure that was laying around and then pretending that it's someone else's fault.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
The point is that there's something out there that someone thinks is valuable to their business, but then it's not.
No, the point is that in its natural state, it is valuable, but then someone takes an additional, active step to adulterate it in order to make it poisonous rather than valuable. That is crossing a line into active, malicious sabotage, and no number of weird analogies makes it not crossing that line.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
So back to the question you didn't answer.
That was my answer: it's still a booby trap even if you have a secure fence around it.
Okay so why did you even mention registration and paywall if neither registration nor paywall changes anything?
Neither registration nor paywall changes anything about sabotage or tortious interference. What they do change is providing a clear barrier that, if circumvented, can give rise to a CFAA claim, as I explained.
Does the free website have obligation to continue providing service to users that they know they have CFAA claim against? And if not... are they forbidden from silently redirecting them to a different service that's markedly worse?
This actually poses an interesting question for F2P games. Is it against the law for matchmaking systems to pit known hackers against other known hackers (I forgot what this technique is called but it's used by most of the popular games nowadays)?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
The point is that there's something out there that someone thinks is valuable to their business, but then it's not.
No, the point is that in its natural state, it is valuable, but then someone takes an additional, active step to adulterate it in order to make it poisonous rather than valuable. That is crossing a line into active, malicious sabotage, and no number of weird analogies makes it not crossing that line.
No, it absolutely isn't sabotage. They've done nothing to the scraper or anything owned by the scraper no matter how intensely you hallucinate otherwise.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
So back to the question you didn't answer.
That was my answer: it's still a booby trap even if you have a secure fence around it.
Okay so why did you even mention registration and paywall if neither registration nor paywall changes anything?
Neither registration nor paywall changes anything about sabotage or tortious interference. What they do change is providing a clear barrier that, if circumvented, can give rise to a CFAA claim, as I explained.
Does the free website have obligation to continue providing service to users that they know they have CFAA claim against? And if not... are they forbidden from silently redirecting them to a different service that's markedly worse?
This actually poses an interesting question for F2P games. Is it against the law for matchmaking systems to pit known hackers against other known hackers (I forgot what this technique is called but it's used by most of the popular games nowadays)?
I'd be leery of doing so, because this hypothetical is exactly why the legal system exists in the first place: things you "know" might not, in fact, be true. We strongly discourage people — most especially the aggrieved parties themselves — from taking the enforcement of the law into their own hands, preferring to hash it out in an adversarial process before an objective, unbiased third party, for a variety of reasons, but above all else for the protection of the accused against false accusations.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
The point is that there's something out there that someone thinks is valuable to their business, but then it's not.
No, the point is that in its natural state, it is valuable, but then someone takes an additional, active step to adulterate it in order to make it poisonous rather than valuable. That is crossing a line into active, malicious sabotage, and no number of weird analogies makes it not crossing that line.
No, it absolutely isn't sabotage. They've done nothing to the scraper or anything owned by the scraper no matter how intensely you hallucinate otherwise.
What are you talking about? "Doing something to" the training run by the scraper is the entire reason for Nightshade's existence. It is specifically advertised as existing for that exact purpose: "run your work through this to screw up AIs."
