Sounds like nothing particularly unusual or alarming. Researchers found a few thousand images that could be illegal that were referenced by it, told LAION about it, and LAION pulled the database down temporarily while checking and removing them. A few thousand images out of five billion is not significant.

There’s also the persistent misunderstanding of what the LAION database is, which is even perpetuated by the paper itself (making me suspicious of the researchers’ motivations since they surely know better). The paper says: “We find that having possession of a LAION‐5B dataset populated even in late 2023 implies the possession of thousands of illegal images—not including all of the intimate imagery published and gathered non‐consensually, the legality of which is more variable by jurisdiction,” When the LAION-5B dataset doesn’t actually have any pictures at all in. It’s purely a list of URLs pointing at images that are on the Internet, each with text describing them. Possessing the dataset doesn’t make you in possession of any of those images.

Edit: Yeah, down at the bottom of the article I see the researcher state that in his opinion LAION-5B shouldn’t even exist and use inaccurate emotionally-charged language about how AI training data is “stolen.” So there’s the motivation I was suspicious of.

It occurs to me that a lot of people don’t know the background here.

LAION is a German Verein (a club). It’s mainly a German physics/comp sci teacher who does this in his spare time. (German teachers have the equivalent of a Master’s degree.)

He took data collected by an American non-profit called Common Crawl. “Crawl” means that they have a computer program that automatically follows all links on a page, and then all links on those pages, and so on. In this way, Common Crawl basically downloads the internet (or rather the publicly reachable parts of it).

Search engines, like Google or Microsoft’s Bing, crawl the internet to create the databases that power their search. But these and other for-profit businesses aren’t sharing the data. Common Crawl exists so that independent researchers also have some data to study the internet and its history.

Obviously, these data sets include illegal content. It’s not feasible to detect all of it. Even if you could manually look at all of it, that would be illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. Besides, which standards of illegal content should one apply? If a Chinese researcher downloads some data and learns things about Tiananmen Square in 1989, what should the US do about that?

Well, that data is somehow not the issue here, for some reason. Interesting, no?

The German physics teacher wrote a program that extracted links to images, as well as their accompanying text descriptions, from Common Crawl. These links and descriptions were put into a list - a spreadsheet, basically. The list also contains metadata like the image size. On top of that, he used AI to guess if they are “NSFW” (IE porn), and if people would think they are beautiful. This list, with 5 billion entries, is LAION-5b.

Sifting through Petabytes of data to do all that is not something you can do on your home computer. The funding that Stability AI provided is a few thousand USD for supercomputer time in “the cloud”.

German researchers at the LMU - a government funded university in Munich - had developed a new image AI, which is especially efficient and can be run on normal gaming PCs. (The main people now work on a start-up in New York.) The AI was trained on that open source data set and named Stable Diffusion in honor of Stability AI, which had provided the several 100k USD needed to pay for the supercomputer time.

These supposed issues are only an issue for free and open source AI. The for-profit AI companies keep their data sets secret. They are fairly safe from accusations.

Maybe one should use PhotoDNA to search for illegal content? The for-profit company PhotoDNA, which so kindly provided its services for free to this study, is owned by Microsoft, which is also behind OpenAI.

Or maybe one should only use data that has been manually checked by humans? That would be outsourced to a low wage country for pennies, but no need: Luckily, billion-dollar corporations exist that offer just such data sets.

This article solely attacks non-profit endeavors. The only for-profit companies mentioned (PhotoDNA, Getty), stand to gain from these attacks.

On a different note how do these big companies train AI’s to detect CSAM without using a bunch of illegal CSAM to train it?

Look forward to seeing this referenced every time some dingus thinks AI can only generate exactly what it’s seen before. Not like combining things by satisfying multiple keywords is every demo.