4 ms·
You make it sound like we should assume that getting inspiration from a few hundred or thousand art works that are very famous and highly public is the same as
by foota 4y ago
You make it sound like we should assume that getting inspiration from a few hundred or thousand art works that are very famous and highly public is the same as training over nearly every available public piece of art. I see no reason why that should be our null hypothesis.
Humans either learn art by being natural art geniuses, or by receiving instruction and learning through an iterative process (where, again, they might create thousands of art works, but nowhere near the scale here), which is very different.
- usrbinbash 4y ago> which is very different. Why is it different? The only difference that matters, is scale. And again, if I want to argue that something done 10000000000 times is legally problematic, I have to be prepared to explain why doing it 10 times is problematic as well, only less so.
- RandomLensman 4y agoNothing new. People differentiate between genocide and murder, for example, or poisoning water supply vs an individual poisoning. Criminal law in quite a few places definitely has scale considerations.
- croon 4y agoYou just gave two examples of where both ends of the scale are illegal, which only strengthens the argument of GP. IANAL, and I'm not stating anything about the reality of the judicial system, but only following the logic of the argument.
- RandomLensman 4y agoMy examples only were meant illustrate that scale is a well known "thing" in legal systems and I happened to pick things with two illegal endpoints (IANAL). You could look at other things like the need for permits for certain things as a function of size and use, if you want simple examples for scale mattering and legal endpoint(s).
- usrbinbash 4y agoI am no lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. I am completely aware that scale is a "thing" in legal systems. But as I said before: For scale to be important, the unscaled act in itself has to be problematic already.
- RandomLensman 4y agoIANAL, but not sure I necessarily agree I with that. Why then worry about monopolies or cartels? Price setting is just "at scale" there, for example. Granted, things around power concentration have deep philosophical and social roots.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- foota 4y agoWould you give me a second of your time? What about 1 billion seconds of your time? Could I have a dollar? What about a billion dollars? The burden isn't on me to explain why something being scaled up by a billion is not the same.
- usrbinbash 4y agoThe question isn't if a scaled up thing is the same, the question is if a legal thing scaled up suddenly becomes illegal for no other reason than being scaled up.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago1. An AI has a training set of one image and produces an exact replica. 2. An AI has a training set of every image in the world and produces an entirely unique work. Which do you have more of a problem with?
- junofan 4y ago#2 is pretty interesting. After all, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative works. If we have machines that can generate creative works on demand with little effort, what purpose does copyright law serve?
- usrbinbash 4y agoI am not a lawyer, so the following is only my opinion. Copyright law serves the purpose of peoples works being protected from unauthorized parties making copies of their works, and profiting off them. It doesn't protect from technology making the production of new works cheaper, faster, more efficient. An artist using photoshop can be, and is allowed to be, many times faster than one using oil and canvas.
- foota 4y agoThat's a false dichotomy.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoI don't mean to suggest those are the only options, or that either one is even practical. The point is to determine where the objection lies: with the method or the outcome.
- foota 4y agoHm, okay. In that case, I would say the first is a problem, and the second is also, but differently. I think the objectionable thing about the second is that the AI knows everyone's styles, and so can use them in creating something new. Even if the AI is restricted to not be able to paint an image in a certain artist style (as the new version of stable diffusion is, for instance) and the art is unique, I think part of the problem is that the AI is still (presumably) leaning on the collective styles of everyone it has trained over. If we can train an AI over a small dataset or maybe even a large dataset of old art, or some mix in between, and then maybe fine tune it wtih a snall sampling of modern art, then I believe it would be unobjectionable, as this is largely how humans do it.