> The new challenge is AI can generate "potentially infringing" work at a much higher rate than humans, but that's really about it The other challenges are: (i

> The new challenge is AI can generate "potentially infringing" work at a much higher rate than humans, but that's really about it The other challenges are: (i) the model isn't a human that can defend themself by explaining their creative process, it's a literal mathematical transformation of the inputs including the copyrighted work. (And I'm not sure "actually the human brain is just computation" defences offered by lawyers are ever likely to prevail in court, because if they do that opens much bigger cans of worms in virtually every legal field...) (ii) the representatives of OpenAI Inc who do have to explain themselves are going to have to talk about their approach to licenses for use of the material (which in this case appears to have been to disregard them altogether). That could be a serious issue for them even if the court agrees with the general principle that diffusion models or GANs are not plagiarism. And possibly also (iii) the AI has ridiculous failure modes like implementing the Getty watermark which makes the model look far more closely derived from its source data than it actually is