A public repository for the Mozilla Fairness in AI Challenge.
In short: c9 is a place for artists to upload their creations for inclusion in (or exclusion from) training data.
At length: machine learning models and AI art generators have been trained using content that's largely scraped from the world wide web, and while US courts have established that commercial use of art in this way is sufficiently transformative, there's a difference between something being legal and something being moral.
The question of ethics behind non-educational use of public art is a difficult one, and one that we seek to work around by making a dataset to which any artist can contribute.
Intent and detail: an artist contributing to this site does so with the explicit knowledge that their work will be used to shape the next generation of art tools. Informed consent is essential to us and is the very reason we're putting this collection together.
A few reasons include,
- "Public data should yield public benefit. I've benefited from using tools that remove tedium and want to contribute something back."
- "I want to be a part of something that lasts."
- "If I donate some of my creations it will help build a better model, and if the best model is one that was made entirely from data given with consent, that's a win for everyone."
- "My art has already inspired and influenced people and I want to give my permission for the same thing to happen to an AI."
This is a small selection and there are as many reasons as there are contributors.
Short answer: no -- we will never scrape your art or add it without your permission.
Long answer: no, but it would help us if you added your profile so we can make sure nobody else is acting in bad faith.
Additionally, as a token of our appreciation, we can try to remove your work from some larger non-educational datasets, though we can't guarantee the outcomes.
This is a huge challenge. We will be experimenting with different ways of verifying artists and validating our users.
We might get it wrong, but we'll keep trying. If it turns out it's impossible to keep bad actors from adding malicious data or if the tool becomes a net negative to society, we will take the whole thing down.
Short answer: yes, but with caveats. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. When you decide you don't want something to be included in training we'll mark it as such and drop it from our training set. Future snapshots will not include your creations unless you choose to opt back in.
Long answer: Things on the internet are "always on the internet". While we can remove your data from datasets we produce and make terms and conditions to force dataset consumers to do the same, if someone downloads the data before you opt out and refuses to adhere to our terms and conditions, we can't do much but block them. We can't remove your art from their devices after they've saved it. Additionally, models trained with your data may still be in circulation after you've withdrawn your content and may continue to influence their output.
Will you be adding public archives like The Smithsonian or collections from cultural preservation societies?
It's a difficult decision. We want to preserve the cultures of those who cannot self-advocate. Representation matters, and if the content is coming from individuals who have traditionally been underrepresented or actively silenced, we would love to have their voices be heard here. On the other side, including the contents without the permission of the creators flies in the face of the consent doctrine.
Art is sometimes objectionable. It communicates meaning and feelings which can bring us discomfort, joy, fear, peace, anger, or any of the countless colors of the human experience. While we can't claim to be The Perfect Arbiters of Truth and Beauty, we have an obligation to act in a way that improves the lives of those around us. We interpret this to mean "try to show the world as it should be, rather than as it is," and we interpret that to mean, "depictions of violence may appear, but should not be glorified." History should be preserved, but understood with modern eyes. We do not want to bury the atrocities of the past, but we want to make sure they are recognized as atrocities.
Content that is "objectionable" for other reasons requires a more nuanced view. In keeping with local laws, we will insist content which depicts nudity be tagged as such, even if it is not pornographic.
We'd rather you didn't for two reasons:
- Existing models can add to same biases
- AI art training ai art means recycling same ideas
Won't stop you since the dividing line is fuzzy. 10% AI, 20% AI?
Some design decisions and implementation quirks:
- Choosing between Cornucopia, Diesel, and Sqlx.
- Cornucopia: SQL -> Rust
- Diesel: SQL -> Rust schema.rs + model.rs (manual)
- SQLX: Rust + SQL files or inline. No mapping.