Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

znihilist t1_j6z78wg wrote

Reply to comment by maxToTheJ in [R] Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Models by pm_me_your_pay_slips

That's beside the point, my point is that the MP3 compression comparison doesn't work, so that line of reasoning isn't applicable. Whether one use can excuse another isn't part of the argument.

1

maxToTheJ t1_j6zy5z8 wrote

>That's beside the point,

It does for the comment thread which was about copyright

> my point is that the MP3 compression comparison doesn't work,

It does for the part that is actually the point (copyright law).

1

znihilist t1_j704b3j wrote

>> That's beside the point,

> It does for the comment thread which was about copyright

It doesn't, as this is issue has not been decided by courts or laws yet, and opinion seems to be evenly divided. So this is circular logic.

>> my point is that the MP3 compression comparison doesn't work,

> It does for the part that is actually the point (copyright law).

You mentioned MP3 (compressed versions) as comparable in functionality, and my argument is about how they are not similar in functionality, so the conclusion doesn't follow as they are not comparable in that analysis. Compression not absolving copyright infringement doesn't lead to the same thing being concluded for diffusion models. As you asserted that, you need to show show compression and diffusion follow the same functionality for that comparison to work. That's like if I say that it isn't illegal that I can look at a painting and then go home and have vivid images of that painting therefore diffusion models are not doing any infringement, that would be fallacious and wrong, functionality doesn't follow, the same for MP3 example.

1

maxToTheJ t1_j70et3o wrote

>You mentioned MP3 (compressed versions) as comparable in functionality,

Facepalm. For the identity part not the whole thing.

1