3 ms·

This is different from plagiarism. Because in plagiarism there is an original that can be compared against. There is a specific work/person where a infraction w

This is different from plagiarism. Because in plagiarism there is an original that can be compared against. There is a specific work/person where a infraction was commit-ed against. In AI produced artwork, the artwork is genuinely original and possibly better then what other humans can produce. No one was actually harmed. Thus in actuality it offers true value if not better value then what a human can produce. It displaces humanity and that is horrifying, but technically no crime was committed, and nothing was plagiarized.

jjulius 4y ago
You asked why someone was downvoted for laughing about how AI-generated content is hard to detect/can still be submitted, and then asked, "How can this be in actuality prevented?". The comparison I was making was the comparison to the process of submitting plagiarized content, not whether or not AI-generated content and plagiarized works are the same thing.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
>No one was actually harmed. // In a couple of years, unchecked, many artists will be out of work and companies like Getty will be making a lot less revenue. That's "harm" in legal terms. On a previous SD story someone noted they create recipe pictures using an AI instead of using a stock service. These sorts of developments are great, IMO, but we have to democratise the benefits.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  That's like me creating a car that's faster and better then other cars and more energy efficient. Would it be legal to ban Tesla because it harms the car industry through disruption? AI generated art is disrupting the art industry by creating original art that's cheaper and in the future possibly better. Why should we ban that. By harm I mean direct harm. Theft of ideas and direct copying. But harm through creating a better product. Morally I think there is nothing wrong with this. Practically we may have to do it, but this is like banning marijuana.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    Yeah, the law isn't morality. >Why should we ban that. // Well, we have copyright law, so I was starting there, though I'd be personally pretty interested in a state that made copyright very minimal. The question is what type of encouragement do we want in law for the creative arts; I doubt any individual would create the copyright law that lobbying has left us with, but equally I think most people would want to protect human artists somewhat when AIs come to eat their lunch and want to make a plate out of the human artists previous work [it's like a whole sector is getting used to train their replacement, but they're not even being paid whilst they do that].
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      copyright doesn't apply. Nothing was copied. The AI was trained in the same way you trained your brain when you look at something. Nothing is copied. Nothing immoral was done. No law was broken.
      - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        When I look at something I create an image of it on my retina. When a computer "looks" it creates an image somewhere. The former is allowed, the latter comes against copyright scrutiny, things like caching images to show you a webpage have been addressed by copyright law--through precedent--and this will be similarly addressed.
        deltasevennine 4y ago
        The image is not saved in a neural network. No identical image can be extracted from the network.
        pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        Yes, it's a derivative that relies on use of the copyright works. You can't create a NN without using a copy of the work, so copyright applies -- there might be a Fair Use exception in USA but the outputs compete with the original creators of the works and so IMO courts are likely to rule it as non-Fair Use.

jjulius 4y ago

You asked why someone was downvoted for laughing about how AI-generated content is hard to detect/can still be submitted, and then asked, "How can this be in actuality prevented?". The comparison I was making was the comparison to the process of submitting plagiarized content, not whether or not AI-generated content and plagiarized works are the same thing.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

>No one was actually harmed. // In a couple of years, unchecked, many artists will be out of work and companies like Getty will be making a lot less revenue. That's "harm" in legal terms. On a previous SD story someone noted they create recipe pictures using an AI instead of using a stock service. These sorts of developments are great, IMO, but we have to democratise the benefits.

deltasevennine 4y ago
That's like me creating a car that's faster and better then other cars and more energy efficient. Would it be legal to ban Tesla because it harms the car industry through disruption? AI generated art is disrupting the art industry by creating original art that's cheaper and in the future possibly better. Why should we ban that. By harm I mean direct harm. Theft of ideas and direct copying. But harm through creating a better product. Morally I think there is nothing wrong with this. Practically we may have to do it, but this is like banning marijuana.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Yeah, the law isn't morality. >Why should we ban that. // Well, we have copyright law, so I was starting there, though I'd be personally pretty interested in a state that made copyright very minimal. The question is what type of encouragement do we want in law for the creative arts; I doubt any individual would create the copyright law that lobbying has left us with, but equally I think most people would want to protect human artists somewhat when AIs come to eat their lunch and want to make a plate out of the human artists previous work [it's like a whole sector is getting used to train their replacement, but they're not even being paid whilst they do that].
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    copyright doesn't apply. Nothing was copied. The AI was trained in the same way you trained your brain when you look at something. Nothing is copied. Nothing immoral was done. No law was broken.
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      When I look at something I create an image of it on my retina. When a computer "looks" it creates an image somewhere. The former is allowed, the latter comes against copyright scrutiny, things like caching images to show you a webpage have been addressed by copyright law--through precedent--and this will be similarly addressed.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        The image is not saved in a neural network. No identical image can be extracted from the network.
        pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        Yes, it's a derivative that relies on use of the copyright works. You can't create a NN without using a copy of the work, so copyright applies -- there might be a Fair Use exception in USA but the outputs compete with the original creators of the works and so IMO courts are likely to rule it as non-Fair Use.