3 ms·

I don't think this is universally unethical, and even if one does find this unethical, it seems low on the list of unethical things to be worrying about. Even i

by dfxm12 4y ago

I don't think this is universally unethical, and even if one does find this unethical, it seems low on the list of unethical things to be worrying about. Even in the context of exploiting people's labor. Furthermore, I think a lot of art generated by actual intelligence is made by those consuming tons of copyrighted material and putting a twist on things. Is it unethical to listen to The Monkees, since, to put it in the terms of the article, they were so clearly trained on the Beatles with a few tweaks here or there?

acomjean 4y ago
People have found inspiration in other works since we've been creating art. In music if you use a snipet of someone else's recording you have to pay them. It wasn't always clear that would be the case, but thats where they landed. (You end up with Led Zeppelin and Beatles Samples in some early rap). Even "Sound alike " singers get litigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. But in visual art its a little different. Borrowing is more common and remixing is kinda allowed. When does it become "transformative?" (I always think of the "Hope" poster lawsuit, where the borrower sued the photographer as a strange one. ) https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-lawsuit-settlement-good-deal-both-sides-says-kernochan-center-director https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-... But what is the AI doing? I don't think its taking the input given and being inspired... Its kinda just sampling, in a way that makes it seem like its being original. Or is the unique training set/ annotations that are is giving the AI its unique output the art, in which case its more original. At some point some AI is going to spit something out too close to something else and the courts will probably have to decide.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >At some point some AI is going to spit something out too close to something else and the courts will probably have to decide. People have been spitting out stuff too close to decide and letting courts decide for well over a hundred years. This is nothing new. If people make art that is in the style of someone else, by hand or by AI, it's generally fine to do so. If it gets too close, then courts can step in as always.
  - acomjean 4y ago
    It will probably depend on if the AI has the original image in its training set.. As opposed to trying to determine if a person had seen the original.

by dfxm12 4y ago

acomjean 4y ago

People have found inspiration in other works since we've been creating art. In music if you use a snipet of someone else's recording you have to pay them. It wasn't always clear that would be the case, but thats where they landed. (You end up with Led Zeppelin and Beatles Samples in some early rap). Even "Sound alike " singers get litigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. But in visual art its a little different. Borrowing is more common and remixing is kinda allowed. When does it become "transformative?" (I always think of the "Hope" poster lawsuit, where the borrower sued the photographer as a strange one. ) https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-lawsuit-settlement-good-deal-both-sides-says-kernochan-center-director https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-... But what is the AI doing? I don't think its taking the input given and being inspired... Its kinda just sampling, in a way that makes it seem like its being original. Or is the unique training set/ annotations that are is giving the AI its unique output the art, in which case its more original. At some point some AI is going to spit something out too close to something else and the courts will probably have to decide.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>At some point some AI is going to spit something out too close to something else and the courts will probably have to decide. People have been spitting out stuff too close to decide and letting courts decide for well over a hundred years. This is nothing new. If people make art that is in the style of someone else, by hand or by AI, it's generally fine to do so. If it gets too close, then courts can step in as always.
- acomjean 4y ago
  It will probably depend on if the AI has the original image in its training set.. As opposed to trying to determine if a person had seen the original.