Featureless_Bug t1_j1veefz wrote
Reply to comment by gkaykck in [Discussion] 2 discrimination mechanisms that should be provided with powerful generative models e.g. ChatGPT or DALL-E by Exnur0
>I think if this is going to be implemented, it has to be at model level, not as an extra layer on top. Just thinking outloud with my not so great ML knowledge, if we mark every image in training data with some special and static "noise" which is unnoticable to human eyes, all the images generated will be marked with the same "noise".
This is already wrong - it might work, it might not work
>So this is for running open source alternatives on your own cluster.
Well, of course the open source models will be trained on data without any noise added, people are not stupid
>When it comes to "why would OpenAI do it", it would be nice for them to be able to track where does their generated pictures/content end up to for investors etc. This can also help them "license" the images generated with their models instead of charging per run.
Well, open AI won't do it because no one wants watermarked images. Consequently, if they tried to watermark their outputs, people will be even more likely to use open-source alternatives. That's why open AI won't do it
Eggy-Toast t1_j1vhtgg wrote
“This is already wrong — it might work” disingenuous much?
The point of that proposed watermark is that it can be imperceptible to the human eye but perceptible by some algorithm or model nevertheless. It only adds value to the product, but perhaps not as much as it would take to implement.
I think in your comments though you entirely overlooked the fact that DALLE 2 has watermark implementation and it is in no way subtle, but it can be cropped out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments