6 ms·

> AI art is about putting together the work that artists have done in a way that isn't technically theft (well it might be the law is very slow about reacting t

> AI art is about putting together the work that artists have done in a way that isn't technically theft (well it might be the law is very slow about reacting to this thing and you can't go after someone for copyright violation as a class action lawsuit) How do you think humans learn art? Humans aren't magic, they learn to make art by looking at and being inspired by other art, and I'd bet quite a lot of that art is copyrighted. AIs are just doing the same thing but way faster, and I don't see any issue with that. (Same with GitHub Copilot for that matter.)

layer8 4y ago
Humans generally recognize when they are plagiarizing. AIs don’t.
- analyst74 4y ago
  When I dated a musician, she would randomly point out all the pieces in various kinds of music that are "borrowed" or blatantly copied from other music. It is understood among musicians that almost all music are derivatives of prior art.
  - fedorareis 4y ago
    While yes a lot of music is based on prior art there are levels of that and there is a lot of case law on what doesn’t break copyright. There is a lot of music that steals from classical but that is public domain. There are rules about how much of a riff from a copyrighted song you can borrow before it becomes copyright infringement and you owe the original writer royalties. Music also has a lot of standard conventions that lead to similar conclusions at least if you are using western music theory since that is based on western classical music. So an amount of this deals with scale and the copyright status of the prior art.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Yes, and they also put a lot of effort into intentionally disguising the fact that they're plagiarizing. AIs don't. The real problem is that our definition of "plagiarism" did not anticipate, and was never intended to describe, anything even remotely like ML.
dinkumthinkum 4y ago
I think humans don’t learn art like statistical learning AI. What did Dali steal copyright from? I think humans are not like this in the same way that Ramanujan was not like ChatGPT.
buran77 4y ago
> AIs are just doing the same thing but way faster, and I don't see any issue with that. Isn't this like saying "cars are just doing the same as horse drawn carriages but faster, they shouldn't be regulated differently"? That "faster" changes the game completely. Similarly, many of the laws applying to physical actions can't be immediately transposed to electronic actions. The current rules were made under the assumption that we're dealing with humans and "natural" laws. Like the fact that humans eventually die while an AI can live forever or transfer the entirety of useful knowledge to the next generation. A human doesn't have time to steal in a lifetime as much as an AI can do in mere minutes. A human can be punished for breaking the law, especially for repeat offenses, whereas an AI can't be even if it breaks the law more times than all human artists put together. These are all complete game changers, speed is only one of the many compounding factors. Scale changes things, a punch in the face isn't just "a gentle tap, but faster". An AI can suck in all of human knowledge and work with all of it at the speed of light. > How do you think humans learn art? Humans as a race have created art from literally nothing. Humans as individuals have constantly advanced it with original material. AI seems to be by definition derivative. Humans are encouraged to create something as original as possible and attacked if they borrow too much, AI in "encouraged" to copy as much as possible and as this discussion stands to prove, also to "borrow". This at the very least invalidates the too simplistic view that AI is the same as humans but faster.
- TheBrokenRail 4y ago
  > Humans as a race have created art from literally nothing. No, they didn't? Humans don't have any magic creative juices that allow them to come up with ideas out of thin air, that's silly. Ideas are created from our brain using our past experiences and knowledge, why do you think some of our earliest art is of animals? Also, I'm not sure comparing artists to horse-drawn carriages is the best analogy to support your argument, considering horse-drawn carriages are almost nonexistent nowadays. I'd argue a better analogy would be something like chess or any other game. When computers beat humans at chess, nobody changed the rules of chess to make computers perform worse. People just acknowledged that computers were better.
  - Arainach 4y ago
Guvante 4y ago
If you use MS Paint to copy three photos you found online you are violating their copyright. Your personal insight into how it is done might provide you your own copyright and exactly how you use the other things might make your usage fair use. However the AI process does not create a copyright (there is no human involved) and cannot use the transformative exceptions for fair use due to, again, no human being involved. The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing.
- barnabee 4y ago
  Do you agree with copyright laws? Are they the best way to reward creation? Do they serve humanity well?
  - Guvante 4y ago
    > Do you agree with copyright laws? In their entirety? No of course not. Certainly the duration is ridiculous beyond measure. But the idea of having no protections for your own work seems barbaric. At least for work that requires "work" for lack of a better word. I think the laze faire nature of online memes for instance makes sense in that space. > Are they the best way to reward creation? I think that providing a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it makes sense. > Do they serve humanity well? While I wouldn't attribute societies recent online boon to them. I do think that having protections of this kind are one of the reasons we have seen such a huge investment in the space. Like the current internet or not the hundreds of billions or trillions pumped into it would be harder to stomach if the internet were the wild west some would like it to be.
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Honestly, I suspect creating > a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it Is impossible.
      - 4y ago
bakugo 4y ago
A computer algorithm is not a human and should not have the same rights as a human. I'm getting really tired of repeating this really simple concept that AI evangelists can't seem to understand.
- TheBrokenRail 4y ago
  I'm not saying that AI should have rights. I'm saying it's silly to call it "theft" when an AI does it, but "learning" and "inspiration" when a human does the same thing.
odessacubbage 4y ago
>https://twitter.com/sinix777/status/1604514161391677440 https://twitter.com/sinix777/status/1604514161391677440 'Digital devices are not afforded the same "observational rights" as humans. You can't just buy an extra ticket for a video camera and take it to watch Avatar with you. And you're definitely not allowed to sell those "observations" no matter how compressed the format.'

layer8 4y ago

Humans generally recognize when they are plagiarizing. AIs don’t.

analyst74 4y ago
When I dated a musician, she would randomly point out all the pieces in various kinds of music that are "borrowed" or blatantly copied from other music. It is understood among musicians that almost all music are derivatives of prior art.
- fedorareis 4y ago
  While yes a lot of music is based on prior art there are levels of that and there is a lot of case law on what doesn’t break copyright. There is a lot of music that steals from classical but that is public domain. There are rules about how much of a riff from a copyrighted song you can borrow before it becomes copyright infringement and you owe the original writer royalties. Music also has a lot of standard conventions that lead to similar conclusions at least if you are using western music theory since that is based on western classical music. So an amount of this deals with scale and the copyright status of the prior art.
CamperBob2 4y ago
Yes, and they also put a lot of effort into intentionally disguising the fact that they're plagiarizing. AIs don't. The real problem is that our definition of "plagiarism" did not anticipate, and was never intended to describe, anything even remotely like ML.

dinkumthinkum 4y ago

I think humans don’t learn art like statistical learning AI. What did Dali steal copyright from? I think humans are not like this in the same way that Ramanujan was not like ChatGPT.

buran77 4y ago

> AIs are just doing the same thing but way faster, and I don't see any issue with that. Isn't this like saying "cars are just doing the same as horse drawn carriages but faster, they shouldn't be regulated differently"? That "faster" changes the game completely. Similarly, many of the laws applying to physical actions can't be immediately transposed to electronic actions. The current rules were made under the assumption that we're dealing with humans and "natural" laws. Like the fact that humans eventually die while an AI can live forever or transfer the entirety of useful knowledge to the next generation. A human doesn't have time to steal in a lifetime as much as an AI can do in mere minutes. A human can be punished for breaking the law, especially for repeat offenses, whereas an AI can't be even if it breaks the law more times than all human artists put together. These are all complete game changers, speed is only one of the many compounding factors. Scale changes things, a punch in the face isn't just "a gentle tap, but faster". An AI can suck in all of human knowledge and work with all of it at the speed of light. > How do you think humans learn art? Humans as a race have created art from literally nothing. Humans as individuals have constantly advanced it with original material. AI seems to be by definition derivative. Humans are encouraged to create something as original as possible and attacked if they borrow too much, AI in "encouraged" to copy as much as possible and as this discussion stands to prove, also to "borrow". This at the very least invalidates the too simplistic view that AI is the same as humans but faster.

TheBrokenRail 4y ago
> Humans as a race have created art from literally nothing. No, they didn't? Humans don't have any magic creative juices that allow them to come up with ideas out of thin air, that's silly. Ideas are created from our brain using our past experiences and knowledge, why do you think some of our earliest art is of animals? Also, I'm not sure comparing artists to horse-drawn carriages is the best analogy to support your argument, considering horse-drawn carriages are almost nonexistent nowadays. I'd argue a better analogy would be something like chess or any other game. When computers beat humans at chess, nobody changed the rules of chess to make computers perform worse. People just acknowledged that computers were better.
- Arainach 4y ago

Guvante 4y ago

If you use MS Paint to copy three photos you found online you are violating their copyright. Your personal insight into how it is done might provide you your own copyright and exactly how you use the other things might make your usage fair use. However the AI process does not create a copyright (there is no human involved) and cannot use the transformative exceptions for fair use due to, again, no human being involved. The thing to remember is AI literally copies the originals. While it mashes them together in a way that makes the lines hard to see that is in fact what it is doing.

barnabee 4y ago
Do you agree with copyright laws? Are they the best way to reward creation? Do they serve humanity well?
- Guvante 4y ago
  > Do you agree with copyright laws? In their entirety? No of course not. Certainly the duration is ridiculous beyond measure. But the idea of having no protections for your own work seems barbaric. At least for work that requires "work" for lack of a better word. I think the laze faire nature of online memes for instance makes sense in that space. > Are they the best way to reward creation? I think that providing a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it makes sense. > Do they serve humanity well? While I wouldn't attribute societies recent online boon to them. I do think that having protections of this kind are one of the reasons we have seen such a huge investment in the space. Like the current internet or not the hundreds of billions or trillions pumped into it would be harder to stomach if the internet were the wild west some would like it to be.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Honestly, I suspect creating > a mechanism for people to share their work without losing control of it Is impossible.
    - 4y ago

bakugo 4y ago

A computer algorithm is not a human and should not have the same rights as a human. I'm getting really tired of repeating this really simple concept that AI evangelists can't seem to understand.

TheBrokenRail 4y ago
I'm not saying that AI should have rights. I'm saying it's silly to call it "theft" when an AI does it, but "learning" and "inspiration" when a human does the same thing.

odessacubbage 4y ago

>https://twitter.com/sinix777/status/1604514161391677440 https://twitter.com/sinix777/status/1604514161391677440 'Digital devices are not afforded the same "observational rights" as humans. You can't just buy an extra ticket for a video camera and take it to watch Avatar with you. And you're definitely not allowed to sell those "observations" no matter how compressed the format.'