FWIW YMMV,
Executive Summary: ==================
* I looked into Stable Diffusion recently. BEWARE: The actual technical and legal situation on the ground with these systems is VERY different from what -say- twitter will lead you to believe. Also :Everything you know will be wrong and out of date inside 1-2 months at this time.
* In general: Times are changing. For better or for worse; if we seize the initiative here, we may be able to advance our cause considerably.
Stable Diffusion: ==================
I recently got into a kerfluffle elsewhere wrt Stable Diffusion, which is a similar technology, forcing me to research it in more detail.
Initially I was inclined to take claims by people opposed to SD at face value, (people claimed with absolute certainty that SD was art-theft, unethical, out to destroy artists, and all around Bad Guys (tm) ...
... but on researching I was surprised to find:
* SD was FLOSS and scrupulously annotated. (may or may not be relevant here)
and/or when I looked at the (C) situation one or more of the following applied: * there was no copyright whatsoever due to significant non-human input [1]. * Or there was a very strong case for transformative fair use and significant non-infringing uses as per [2]. * And even IF any actual copying/derivation could be argued, it was de minimis [3] (on average 2 bits of data per 500000 byte image)
Finally: * The current rate of innovation in this sphere is dizzying. From ugly muddy blobs ~12 months ago to <humans have a 50/50 chance to distinguish between AI generated images and human genareted images>
This situation surprised me somewhat. I would be very interested to see what the ChatGPT defense will look like.
In general: =============
On the short term, precedents or reactive legislation _might_ hurt wikipedia somewhat, but in the mid-term I have a hope that the (C) system will be found to be in need of an overhaul anyway. This would then be an opportunity for CC/FLOSS to engage and advance our goals and advocate for our ethics.
sincerely, Kim
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studio.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:34:16AM +0100, Anders Wennersten wrote:
BIng with ChatGPT is now released by Micrsoft.
And from what I understand they use Wikipedia content considerably. If you ask Who is A B and A B is not widely known, the result is more or less identical to the content from the Wikipedia article (but worse, as it "makes up" facts that is incorrect).
In a way I am glad to see Wikipedia is fully relevant even in this emerging AI-driven search world. But Google search has ben careful to always have a link to Wikipedia besides their made up summary of facts, which here it is missing (yet?). And for licences, they are all ignored.
So if this is the future the number of accesses from users to Wikipedia will collapse, and also their willingness to donate... (but our content still a cornerstone for knowledge)
Anders
(I got a lot of fact from an article in Swedish main newspaper by their tech editor. He started asking fact of himself, and when he received facts from his Wp article plus being credited to a book he had noting to do with, he started to try to tell/learn ChatGPT of this error. The chatPGT only got angry accusing the techeditor for lying and in the end cut off the conversation, as ChatGPT continued to teat the techeditor as lyer and vandal..). _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org