4 ms·

Two objections: 1: you cannot produce thousands of detailed pictures in a day, this program can. The argument gets pretty clear if you transpose it to other ob

by pnt12 4y ago

Two objections: 1: you cannot produce thousands of detailed pictures in a day, this program can. The argument gets pretty clear if you transpose it to other objects, ie why is it fair to ride a bicycle in the sidewalk but not drive a car? 2: copyright laws. You may not see a picture and imitate it. How do you know this AI didn't just imitate one of the million pictures it saw? And if you distribute it and the author wants to sue, who should it sue? The author of the AI or the person who prompted it?

Fricken 4y ago
It's a lot of work for a human to produce an image, but they can think thousands of images in a day quite easily. The artistic process often begins with some daydreaming.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > but they can think thousands of images in a day quite easily thought is not a crime yet. thought police is not a thing, yet...
dymk 4y ago
If someone crashes into your house, do you sue the car or the person?
- TchoBeer 4y ago
  What if AI is controlling the car? Do you sue the passenger?
  - dymk 4y ago
    Yes, I don't get a free pass for harming somebody with a tool I'm operating just because the tool is "automatic" in some way. If the person operating the car is the passenger, then you sue them. If it's Google operating their Waymo fleet, you sue them. Car manufacturers in the future may offer to take on the liability themselves for autopilot mistakes, but that's not yet the deal offered. At the end of the day, there's no legal magic or loopholes. Somebody is ultimately the operator of the vehicle, even if their hands aren't on the steering wheel.
    - planb 4y ago
      Absolutely. If my hand brake breaks while I’m not in my car, the neighbor parking behind me will still sue me, not the car manufacturer.
thegrimmest 4y ago
Is it only the rate of production that makes a difference? If we hooked up our brains to computers that could turn our thoughts into pixels at a rate of thousands per day you'd see no issue? I don't think we should distinguish between meat and silicon neural networks. People should be able to use whichever neural network they see fit for a particular task. If a person has a right to observe and incorporate an image, so should a ML model operated by that person. Also, you may see a picture and imitate it. You may not copy or redistribute it directly. > How do you know this AI didn't just imitate one of the million pictures it saw I think the onus is on the copyright holder to prove a violation to a specific work. > who should it sue? I think the operator of the network is liable. If you distribute an image that is found to be in violation of a copyright, then you are liable no matter how you came about it.

by pnt12 4y ago

Fricken 4y ago

It's a lot of work for a human to produce an image, but they can think thousands of images in a day quite easily. The artistic process often begins with some daydreaming.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> but they can think thousands of images in a day quite easily thought is not a crime yet. thought police is not a thing, yet...

dymk 4y ago

If someone crashes into your house, do you sue the car or the person?

TchoBeer 4y ago
What if AI is controlling the car? Do you sue the passenger?
- dymk 4y ago
  Yes, I don't get a free pass for harming somebody with a tool I'm operating just because the tool is "automatic" in some way. If the person operating the car is the passenger, then you sue them. If it's Google operating their Waymo fleet, you sue them. Car manufacturers in the future may offer to take on the liability themselves for autopilot mistakes, but that's not yet the deal offered. At the end of the day, there's no legal magic or loopholes. Somebody is ultimately the operator of the vehicle, even if their hands aren't on the steering wheel.
  - planb 4y ago
    Absolutely. If my hand brake breaks while I’m not in my car, the neighbor parking behind me will still sue me, not the car manufacturer.

thegrimmest 4y ago

Is it only the rate of production that makes a difference? If we hooked up our brains to computers that could turn our thoughts into pixels at a rate of thousands per day you'd see no issue? I don't think we should distinguish between meat and silicon neural networks. People should be able to use whichever neural network they see fit for a particular task. If a person has a right to observe and incorporate an image, so should a ML model operated by that person. Also, you may see a picture and imitate it. You may not copy or redistribute it directly. > How do you know this AI didn't just imitate one of the million pictures it saw I think the onus is on the copyright holder to prove a violation to a specific work. > who should it sue? I think the operator of the network is liable. If you distribute an image that is found to be in violation of a copyright, then you are liable no matter how you came about it.