3 ms·
I'd argue that AI isn't the "author". It is simply a tool (like a camera). The person who fed it input and tuned its parameters ("pointed it at an object and pr
by rahuldottech 7y ago
I'd argue that AI isn't the "author". It is simply a tool (like a camera). The person who fed it input and tuned its parameters ("pointed it at an object and pressed the shutter") is the "artist" and owns the right to the resulting artwork.
- criddell 7y agoI'm not sure I agree. I think this is different than, say, a laser printer that just spits out my creative work. An AI isn't necessarily under control of the person that owns it. Who do you think owns the copyright of the famous monkey photo? It was the monkey that composed and took the shot. The person who owned the camera had no control over the creative aspects of the shot.
- rahuldottech 7y agoI've commented about this elsewhere in the thread, but basically, it can be argued that a monkey is a conscious being, capable of original thought, whereas the same can't be said about AI/ML.
- WilliamEdward 7y agoan AI is nothing but a model. It only creates the illusion of creating because we are incapable of calculating as much and as fast as they can, but ultimately the product is just the result of the model, and the model is a tool made by the human. Friendly reminder not to treat AI like humans. Ever.
- criddell 7y agoIs there any evidence that our consciousness isn't just the result of computation as well? Is there anything to suggest that we actually have free will and make choices?