4 ms·
Are you foolishly suggesting that Sir Isaac Newton was just aggregating and interpolating others' work? Like a feed-forward chain of matrix multiplications, tr
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Are you foolishly suggesting that Sir Isaac Newton was just aggregating and interpolating others' work?
Like a feed-forward chain of matrix multiplications, trained to predict its training data?
No, of course you weren't. That would be FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
- jjcon 4y agoYes… we all do that every day. Humans don’t exist in isolation, we build and learn from other’s accomplishments from the wheel to the printing press to the computer. Modern impressionists don’t owe royalties to Monet but they certainly draw from and learn from his contributions to the art world. Brand new material from art algorithms (frankly regardless of their sophistication) certainly deserve and fall under this same legal treatment.
- bugfix-66 4y ago
- jjcon 4y ago> You just don't understand the math. This is not in good faith, please read HN rules. Rather than attack me (calling me foolish, swearing at me) why don’t you rebut my ideas and have a conversation if you actually have something to contribute. I’ve read the papers, I’ve worked personally with these systems. I understand them just fine. Notice that I said earlier: “regardless of how simple they are”. I understand you are trying to water them down to be simple interpolation which they definitely are not but even if they were that simple it wouldn’t change the legal calculus here one bit. New art is being generated (far beyond any ‘transformative’ legal test precedent) and any new art that is substantively different from its inputs is legally protectable.
- TOMDM 4y agoThat or they do understand the math and they think what's going on in our own minds may not be that special.