4 ms·

> would that creation constitute copyright infringement? No, obviously not, as that would clearly be unworkable and ridiculous. Mainly because we have a very u

> would that creation constitute copyright infringement? No, obviously not, as that would clearly be unworkable and ridiculous. Mainly because we have a very unclear understanding of human creativity, and there’s no way to analyse an individuals mind to understand how they created an idea. Additionally copyrights reach generally stops at the point of “transformation”, once you take any idea an transform it “enough” it’s considered a new idea. The reason none of the above applies to AI is simply because we’ve declared that only humans can transform and produce new ideas. AI aren’t human, thus they’re not afforded the same rights. Arguing about if there’s an inherent difference between AI creations and human creations is pointless, the law doesn’t care, it has already declared that there’s a difference between AI and human. If you disagree with declaration, then you need to lobby to change the law. But until the change occurs, your believes are meaningless in the eyes of the law.

joxel 4y ago
You see how you’re introducing a viewpoint and assuming it’s true — you’re just saying “humans can create things” and “ai can’t create things”. You don’t even address the possibility that the AI itself is a tool of the human who created it to create things.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  I think in order to justify "the AI is a tool that a human is using, just like a paintbrush" you would have to have to define what meaningful creative process that the human has followed while using the tool. In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. Consider when you commission an artist to make a painting. You give them a "prompt" by explaining what you want. Maybe you even give a "training dataset", a few examples similar to the look and feel of the result you want. Then they go off and make something. They show you in process stuff and you make suggestions so the next version they show you is closer to what you want. This repeats until you are both happy. Then you own the drawing. Because you paid them for it. In this case however it's absolutely clear that you did not create the work. You had input into the creation, but the artist was not a tool you are using to realize your own creative vision. They are the creator, you're a customer for them.
  - joxel 4y ago
    In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. >>> When it's bleeding edge research there is a ton of human creativity involved in developing the product and engineering the dataset.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      Even if that were true, which I am kind of doubtful of, most applications of these tools are not going to be bleeding edge research and should not be treated as though they were.

joxel 4y ago

You see how you’re introducing a viewpoint and assuming it’s true — you’re just saying “humans can create things” and “ai can’t create things”. You don’t even address the possibility that the AI itself is a tool of the human who created it to create things.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
I think in order to justify "the AI is a tool that a human is using, just like a paintbrush" you would have to have to define what meaningful creative process that the human has followed while using the tool. In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. Consider when you commission an artist to make a painting. You give them a "prompt" by explaining what you want. Maybe you even give a "training dataset", a few examples similar to the look and feel of the result you want. Then they go off and make something. They show you in process stuff and you make suggestions so the next version they show you is closer to what you want. This repeats until you are both happy. Then you own the drawing. Because you paid them for it. In this case however it's absolutely clear that you did not create the work. You had input into the creation, but the artist was not a tool you are using to realize your own creative vision. They are the creator, you're a customer for them.
- joxel 4y ago
  In my opinion things like selecting a training dataset and then writing prompts are not creative processes they are mechanical processes. Input in, output out, with barely any interaction from the human. >>> When it's bleeding edge research there is a ton of human creativity involved in developing the product and engineering the dataset.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    Even if that were true, which I am kind of doubtful of, most applications of these tools are not going to be bleeding edge research and should not be treated as though they were.