4 ms·

My understanding is that even humans don't fully know why neural nets are doing exactly what they're doing. If we were indeed able to just press a button and ha

by dejawu 7y ago

My understanding is that even humans don't fully know why neural nets are doing exactly what they're doing. If we were indeed able to just press a button and have an AI give us a finished track (which is not what YACHT did here), who should take credit for the track? I certainly don't think the human who trained the net deserves all the credit, right? That feels like if an artist's otherwise absent father gave them Kid Pix in their childhood and then tried to take credit for their creative output thirty years later.

andreyk 7y ago
This has been an open question for a while, and is in the process of being figures out. Some fun examples: - "Generative art and UK copyright law - good news", http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2011/generative-art-and-uk-copyright-law-good-news.html http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2011/generative-art-and-uk-copyright-... - "Template License and Collaboration Agreements for AI Art" https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2019/02/04/template-license-and-collaboration-agreements-for-ai-art/ https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2019/02/04/template-license...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  There's a more complicated problem. Generative art explores a space of possible outputs, and in some cases some of those outputs will be exactly like existing work. If a melody generator produces a tune that's exactly like $famous_tune, is that plagiarism? What if it produces $famous_tune among thousands of other tunes? Does it make a difference if $famous_tune was in the training set, but there isn't any evidence of over-fitting? What if you argue that the generative space includes $famous_tune, and therefore in some sense all output is influenced by it, making all output a related or derivative work - even if the space is astronomically huge? And so on. I suspect this is going to keep lawyers very busy.
tortasaur 7y ago
The optimist in me wants to believe these quandaries will force us to reevaluate the assumptions behind our copyright system.

by dejawu 7y ago

andreyk 7y ago

This has been an open question for a while, and is in the process of being figures out. Some fun examples: - "Generative art and UK copyright law - good news", http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2011/generative-art-and-uk-copyright-law-good-news.html http://mcld.co.uk/blog/2011/generative-art-and-uk-copyright-... - "Template License and Collaboration Agreements for AI Art" https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2019/02/04/template-license-and-collaboration-agreements-for-ai-art/ https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2019/02/04/template-license...

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
There's a more complicated problem. Generative art explores a space of possible outputs, and in some cases some of those outputs will be exactly like existing work. If a melody generator produces a tune that's exactly like $famous_tune, is that plagiarism? What if it produces $famous_tune among thousands of other tunes? Does it make a difference if $famous_tune was in the training set, but there isn't any evidence of over-fitting? What if you argue that the generative space includes $famous_tune, and therefore in some sense all output is influenced by it, making all output a related or derivative work - even if the space is astronomically huge? And so on. I suspect this is going to keep lawyers very busy.

tortasaur 7y ago

The optimist in me wants to believe these quandaries will force us to reevaluate the assumptions behind our copyright system.