3 ms·
I have no idea what your point is here. These AI companies are making serious amounts of money (OpenAI is valued in tens of billions) on the back of artists wh
by threeseed 4y ago
I have no idea what your point is here.
These AI companies are making serious amounts of money (OpenAI is valued in tens of billions) on the back of artists who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way.
If a child took an artist's work, copied it and made significant amounts of money from selling it then yes they should be within the purview of copyright law.
- bruce343434 4y agoAI doesn't copy one to one. It mixes, like humans.
- LtWorf 4y agoAnd sometimes it mixes just from one. See github copilot.
- freejazz 4y agoAnthropomorphism isn't an argument.
- ben_w 4y agoI wouldn't bet for or against that without legal advice, and even then it might vary by jurisdiction. Legal fictions are a thing, but I'm no lawyer, and I know better than to assume my interpretation of any legal issue is any better than a Hollywood script writer's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
- chii 4y ago> who never gave permission for their work to be used in this way. the copyright aren't all encompassing. There's only an enumerated set of rights granted, and "this way" (aka, training an AI model) is not one of those restricted activities (like distribution or broadcast). Unless the model can be argued to be a derivative work of the training data set (which i don't believe it is, since the process of training is sufficiently transformative imho), the original copyright holders of the training data do not need to be asked permission.