3 ms·
When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce so
by clnq 4y ago
When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content.
It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content.
Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very over-complicated, if not politicised, in the following years.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoTrademark and copyright already restrict what humans can do with others work. If too similar then it could prompt legal action.
- clnq 4y agoThe same could be applied to AI-generated work.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago> When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It is implied that if you are using the work by youself, or via a tool you made youself, it's fine. However works that you redistribute, by copying it yourself or indirectly by tools, said silicone neural nets being one example, instead require a "wide redistribution license agreement", and those are implicitly limited by default unless the work is put in a sorta public domain license.