3 ms·

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

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.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        >Yes, it's a derivative that relies on use of the copyright works. Almost every idea on the face of the earth is a derivative of something else. This includes ideas from a Human brain so applying such laws is inconsistent. >but the outputs compete with the original creators of the works All art competes with other art. And all art is derivative of other art other things.

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.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      >Yes, it's a derivative that relies on use of the copyright works. Almost every idea on the face of the earth is a derivative of something else. This includes ideas from a Human brain so applying such laws is inconsistent. >but the outputs compete with the original creators of the works All art competes with other art. And all art is derivative of other art other things.