Recent comments in /f/MachineLearning

m98789 t1_j4e5du6 wrote

Reply to comment by seventyducks in [D]: Are there models like CODEX but work in a reversed way? by GoodluckH

Gptduck is a cool project, but it only extracts embeddings of portions of the code which are typically just used for search, clustering or recommendation.

That is, the system will convert your question into an embedding, then simply do something like a dot product to get rankings of all other code embeddings to find the most semantically similar to your query. The top one would be presented as the answer.

So it would feel more like an advanced search rather than a ChatGPT-like Q&A experience.

More info on OpenAI’s GPT embeddings:

https://beta.openai.com/docs/guides/embeddings/what-are-embeddings

4

aidv t1_j4e49p1 wrote

Reply to comment by nullbyte420 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

What happened to discussing the laws around copyrights?

Oh yeah I forgot, you’re one of those losers who knows nothing about a topic so you resort to personal insults and stalking because you have no constructive knowledge of value to offer regarding the topic that you yourself started debating.

How does it feel to care more about others than yourself?

Fyi: GME did me good 😉 and looking at who universally dislikes me exposes the profile of most people: a bunch of dumbasses who are less than knowledgable in most areas.

You ever seen a bell curve for intelligence? I doubt it, but I’d be on the far right of it.

”You shall accept defeat only when you are wise enough to understand your past stupidity. And only then will you grow out of your fragile shell and build a new one from an indestructible resource, which is knowledge.”

Guess who said that. (Now you’ll franatically start googling it and go nuts over that you can’t find the source, only to later realize ”why am I wasting my time on this?”, and then you’ll think back to me and accept that I was right all along)

0

nullbyte420 t1_j4dvpyg wrote

Reply to comment by aidv in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

Lmao if you knew anything about law you wouldn't be comparing criminal law with copyright law plus you're completely wrong, but I guess they didn't tell you about the distinction between manslaughter and murder or how these cases are usually judged in law school hahahahaha. I love you bring up programming, I've seen your dumbass comments in the node.js subreddit hahahahaha

1

aidv t1_j4dv17x wrote

Reply to comment by nullbyte420 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

It does not matter. The law is still the law.

What the judge decides is up to the judge.

You are missing the point completely.

Here is an example: Somone may kill someone, by accident, and the law says that the individual must go to jail.

However, the judge may still find the individual not guilty.

That’s an extreme example, but I hope you mind can comprehend the idea. I hope.

I have studied copyright laws. I understand it very well.

Fun fact: computer code written by humans is also protected by copyright laws.

0

nullbyte420 t1_j4dtx8r wrote

Reply to comment by aidv in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

Lol mate whatever, you're the one being uncivilized and uneducated on the internet. Look up cases like chuck Berry vs the beatles for a classic case that demonstrates the thin line between inspiration, accident and derivative copyright infringing art. It happens literally all the time (but often isn't published) making your music producing claims very untrustworthy. The only thing I'm convinced of by you is that you're a child who likes to dream some years ahead on the internet. We've all been there. But try not to make these ridiculous arguments based on nonexistent authority, it's evident from your post history that you know jack about music production lol.

You literally posted in a thread about this just 18 days ago by the way. https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/zvxzcp/how_do_you_find_out_if_you_unconsciously/

2

aidv t1_j4dt4xx wrote

Reply to comment by nullbyte420 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

There was no issue to begin with. You created an issue out of thin air.

You have no idea what you’re even debating anymore, so personal insults is all that you have left.

It’s the same thing with internet people, every time.

0

aidv t1_j4dqwq6 wrote

Reply to comment by nullbyte420 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

The law doesn’t care if a composition was created by accident.

If the composition has already been made by someone else before and it’s not in the public domain, then the rightful author is entitled to 100% of the revenue, pretty much.

It’s the law!

You can argue as much as you want about it, the law is the law and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

But as always, internet people who have zero knowledge in a certain domain argue with professionals and think they’ll win the debate.

Ignorance at its finest.

−1

Ronny_Jotten t1_j4dafyz wrote

Reply to comment by marr75 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

Sorry, but that's entirely false. See my other comment. The US fair use test was created in 1841. The Google case only found that its book search product passed the test, including the publication of "snippets" not having a negative impact on the market for books. That doesn't mean every other arguably-similar project passes the test too. They would need to show that, for example, generated images do not impact the market for images made by the artists whose work was scanned - which is obviously not the case. The situation with generative neural networks is not at all "well settled" by the case about Google's book search.

0

marr75 t1_j4da0ub wrote

Reply to comment by Ronny_Jotten in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

Sure, there will probably be plenty of litigation in the next few years. I find it probable that these suits fail. Sorry for my imprecision on the origin and application of the four-part test. I think we'll just hold our same opinions on the matter coming out so I don't really care enough about this debate to formulate my sentences that carefully or continue.

0

Ronny_Jotten t1_j4d824g wrote

Reply to comment by marr75 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman

You're right, sorry, I had several tabs open on a similar subject... the post I was referring to is this:

[N] Class-action law­suit filed against Sta­bil­ity AI, DeviantArt, and Mid­journey for using the text-to-image AI Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion : MachineLearning

> The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models.

The US four-part fair use test was established long before AGI v. Google: in the 19th century in Folsom v. Marsh. It was encoded into copyright law in 1976. It's applicable to everything.

The case only decided that Google's specific book service did in fact pass the test. The most important aspect is that the judge found that there was no economic damage to the book authors, that it did not replace the books or negatively impact the market for books.

The decision is not applicable to other projects that may be substantially different in character. I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers are hoping that DALL-E will be considered to be equivalent to Google's book search - that they have fair use rights to digitize copyrighted material without permission, and publish something transformed that only contains "snippets" of it. But they will have to get around the fourth factor. Who will commission an expensive original artwork from Greg Rutkowski, when they can simply type a prompt including "in the style of..." and get something substantially similar, for less than a nickel? Will companies use GPL3 code in their products, when they can get a mashed-up facsimile with the restrictive license removed? The question of fair use in the context of generative neural networks is far from settled; hence the lawsuits in the (other) post.

0