4 ms·

Is it? The model learns concepts from images, not the images itself. It has developed general solutions explaining light, colors, composition, objects and thei

Is it? The model learns concepts from images, not the images itself. It has developed general solutions explaining light, colors, composition, objects and their relation to one another, facial features and too many more concepts to even begin enumerating them. How is this different from a human studying art, literature, music, etc. to learn concepts and then apply them in creating new pictures, novels or songs?

antiterra 4y ago
It is different simply because it’s not a human. We can and often do assign laws that affect the automation of something a human can do. For example, installing a device on a firearm that repeatedly pulls the trigger creates a machine gun that is highly restricted legally, regardless of whether a human can easily pull the trigger at the same rate. Further, just because we can talk about how artists, at a high level do the same thing as AI image generators, the actual mechanism is not exactly the same and is therefore still subject to distinct regulation. Even if you were able to somehow establish that computer programs should have the same rights as people (since they are made and used by people,) you’re still not out of the woods. Much debate remains about what creativity and originality means when talking about human generated content in an IP sense, and adding the programmatic aspect doesn’t simplify things. (eg The Sina Qua Non of Copyright is Uniqueness, Not Originality https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf)
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > It is different simply because it’s not a human So? An excavator clearly isn't a human, but it digs holes in the ground by the same principles that a human using only his bare hands would, only faster and more efficient.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    So then it can be subject to laws that are different than those that apply to a human. In Washington you must dig for clams with human power, you cannot use a hydraulic clam pump. There was a time where you could down 50 birds with a single firing of a punt gun. This was made illegal, even if you could still eventually bag 50 birds with a normal shotgun.
jeroenhd 4y ago
For one, a computer cannot hold a copyright so a work produced by a computer is not copyrightable, whereas a derivative work made by a human can be.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  Same as with cameras, brushes, etc. these models are tools, that humans use. I can setup stable diffusion on a computer, I can put a brush next to a roll of canvas, or hammer and chisel next to a block of marble. Neither of these setups will create art on its own.

antiterra 4y ago

It is different simply because it’s not a human. We can and often do assign laws that affect the automation of something a human can do. For example, installing a device on a firearm that repeatedly pulls the trigger creates a machine gun that is highly restricted legally, regardless of whether a human can easily pull the trigger at the same rate. Further, just because we can talk about how artists, at a high level do the same thing as AI image generators, the actual mechanism is not exactly the same and is therefore still subject to distinct regulation. Even if you were able to somehow establish that computer programs should have the same rights as people (since they are made and used by people,) you’re still not out of the woods. Much debate remains about what creativity and originality means when talking about human generated content in an IP sense, and adding the programmatic aspect doesn’t simplify things. (eg The Sina Qua Non of Copyright is Uniqueness, Not Originality https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf)

usrbinbash 4y ago
> It is different simply because it’s not a human So? An excavator clearly isn't a human, but it digs holes in the ground by the same principles that a human using only his bare hands would, only faster and more efficient.
- antiterra 4y ago
  So then it can be subject to laws that are different than those that apply to a human. In Washington you must dig for clams with human power, you cannot use a hydraulic clam pump. There was a time where you could down 50 birds with a single firing of a punt gun. This was made illegal, even if you could still eventually bag 50 birds with a normal shotgun.

jeroenhd 4y ago

For one, a computer cannot hold a copyright so a work produced by a computer is not copyrightable, whereas a derivative work made by a human can be.

usrbinbash 4y ago
Same as with cameras, brushes, etc. these models are tools, that humans use. I can setup stable diffusion on a computer, I can put a brush next to a roll of canvas, or hammer and chisel next to a block of marble. Neither of these setups will create art on its own.