4 ms·

ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong t

ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong to you

kube-system 6y ago
That's a ridiculous idea. AI is a machine like anything else. If I use any other machine to produce a creative work, I own the rights to it. There is no reason for tensorflow to be treated differently. (edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)
- falcor84 6y ago
  I fully disagree, on two grounds. 1. AI is by far our least machine-like invention yet. Our ability to predict the choices a state of the art AI makes, or even reason about them, is extremely limited. As a relevant example, I would argue that AlphaGo's move 37 was creativity by the AI and not its creators, none of whom was a Go grandmaster. 2. AIs can iterate and output creative works extremely rapidly. If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach, it would allow them to amass a potential treasure trove of IP that would put everything that came before to shame. And if they then use this for litigation, then the future could be very gloomy for a while.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    1. This is again not unique to AI. Mankind has created a lot of inventions which work via mechanisms that humans do not fully understand. A lack of human understanding into an invention's detail of operation does not indicate that the invention itself possesses creativity. e.g.: [0] 2. Creativity is not a fixed resource that is allocated. > If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach This is not the current approach. This is what the Artificial Inventor Project is lobbying the USPTO to do, and it is what I am criticizing. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with_unknown_mechanisms_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with...

ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong to you

kube-system 6y ago

That's a ridiculous idea. AI is a machine like anything else. If I use any other machine to produce a creative work, I own the rights to it. There is no reason for tensorflow to be treated differently. (edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)

falcor84 6y ago
I fully disagree, on two grounds. 1. AI is by far our least machine-like invention yet. Our ability to predict the choices a state of the art AI makes, or even reason about them, is extremely limited. As a relevant example, I would argue that AlphaGo's move 37 was creativity by the AI and not its creators, none of whom was a Go grandmaster. 2. AIs can iterate and output creative works extremely rapidly. If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach, it would allow them to amass a potential treasure trove of IP that would put everything that came before to shame. And if they then use this for litigation, then the future could be very gloomy for a while.
- kube-system 6y ago
  1. This is again not unique to AI. Mankind has created a lot of inventions which work via mechanisms that humans do not fully understand. A lack of human understanding into an invention's detail of operation does not indicate that the invention itself possesses creativity. e.g.: [0] 2. Creativity is not a fixed resource that is allocated. > If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach This is not the current approach. This is what the Artificial Inventor Project is lobbying the USPTO to do, and it is what I am criticizing. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with_unknown_mechanisms_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with...