4 ms·
If the AI wants to be exempt from being punished for training on copyrighted works the bare minimum standard is that it doesn’t accidentally copy and reproduce
by TimPC 4y ago
If the AI wants to be exempt from being punished for training on copyrighted works the bare minimum standard is that it doesn’t accidentally copy and reproduce large portions of that work. There are quite a few examples of Stable Diffusion doing this so I think even that low bar is met. I think anyone sane doesn’t want to create AI immunity to copyright damages even when the network is “accidentally” producing copyrighted output. If you can’t adequately control your technology to avoid that case you shouldn’t get immunity to liability for your problematic outputs. I get that testing for every possibility is impossible and that neural net explainability is far behind neural net technology so it’s very hard to proactively identify and debug these technologies. But just because those are hard problems doesn’t give you the right to steal from copyright holders.
- yosame 4y agoYou can use a spoon to kill someone if you're motivated enough, but that doesn't make a spoon a killing weapon. Just because AI art models can reproduce copyright (if you try hard enough), doesn't mean that it's a copyright stealing machine.
- TimPC 4y agoNo but reproducing a copyrighted work is a valid basis for an infringement case which shouldn't hinge on whether stealing the copyright is intentional or whether the methodology to do so is a "copyright stealing machine". Granting AI immunity to copyright when it's known to produce examples of infringement seems like stealing other people's work to me even if the infringement is unintentional.