4 ms·

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. I really don't see how it is fundamentally different. Most of Harry Potter is derivative of pre

by mjhay 4y ago

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. I really don't see how it is fundamentally different. Most of Harry Potter is derivative of previous fantasy work itself. Nothing is made in a vacuum. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool

sfifs 4y ago
Yes and when the derived things are very similar to the original and people feel wronged, they sue and judgements come from the court. Now if you are the company selling this product, how many people are feeling wronged and will sue - that's the class action part? If you use the product to generate an image that is very similar to someone's art and they feel wronged and sue, would you still use it commercially?
sandworm101 4y ago
But Rowling knew enough to pull from prior public domain works, not other recent authors. Wizard schools are public domain. An AI author would have to know which they are allowed to use, which they can use under fair use, and which they must ask to use. Humans can do that. I am doing that right now as I use the "Harry Potter" trademark here while posting to HN without the owner's permission. AI systems scraping the internet cannot understand that needed nuance.
- slyall 4y ago
  Not everything JK pulled from is out of copyright. But generally Authors are allowed to reuse all sorts of things. Compare say Battle Royale to the Hunger Games. Writing a story about Kids fighting to the death doesn't give you a monopoly on that storyline. See this link, lots of recent works in there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_an...
- mjhay 4y ago
  Generally speaking though, any work created by such models does not copy any original work closely at all. Of course there could be slip-ups, but the same could be said of human generated works, which violate fair use on a regular basis.
quadcore 4y ago
Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. The flaw in this argument is the word "artist". If you remove all the pictures from the data source, the AI isnt capable of generating anything. Because it's not an artist.
- Timon3 4y ago
  Can a human "generate anything" beyond what essentially equates to random noise if they have never had any sensory input? Comparing a "trained" human brain with a "newborn" model seems strange if we actually want to delineate between what is and isn't art.
  - ShrimpHawk 4y ago
    Ignoring the straw man argument here yes actually there are plenty of examples of individuals with no outside influence of art styles or references creating artworks. It's called outside art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
    - Timon3 4y ago
      First, it would be great for you to explain how it is a strawman argument. In my eyes the strawman is comparing one system which has had years of training data and time with a system that has a rough structure, but misses everything beyond it. You'd have to at least give them comparable amounts of training data. Even a newly born baby has already had some sensory inputs in the womb, and starts to have a LOT afterwards. Second, your Outsider Art is something completely different, funnily enough a strawman. Surely you're not claiming that the creators of outside art have literally never had any sensory input in their lives? Or do you really think that one painter in two timelines, in one blind and in the other not, would paint exactly the same stuff?
- CrimsonRain 4y ago
  So if you were born blind, you can draw pictures?
rhino369 4y ago
And copyright law deals with the difference between inspiration and copying. To vastly oversimply it, it depends how close the original is to alleged copy. No reason you can't apply that framework to AI. Where AI might get into more trouble is that you might be able show literal copying in a way that it's impossible to do in a person mind. Like saving chunks of a work into its model.

by mjhay 4y ago

sfifs 4y ago

Yes and when the derived things are very similar to the original and people feel wronged, they sue and judgements come from the court. Now if you are the company selling this product, how many people are feeling wronged and will sue - that's the class action part? If you use the product to generate an image that is very similar to someone's art and they feel wronged and sue, would you still use it commercially?

sandworm101 4y ago

But Rowling knew enough to pull from prior public domain works, not other recent authors. Wizard schools are public domain. An AI author would have to know which they are allowed to use, which they can use under fair use, and which they must ask to use. Humans can do that. I am doing that right now as I use the "Harry Potter" trademark here while posting to HN without the owner's permission. AI systems scraping the internet cannot understand that needed nuance.

slyall 4y ago
Not everything JK pulled from is out of copyright. But generally Authors are allowed to reuse all sorts of things. Compare say Battle Royale to the Hunger Games. Writing a story about Kids fighting to the death doesn't give you a monopoly on that storyline. See this link, lots of recent works in there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_an...
mjhay 4y ago
Generally speaking though, any work created by such models does not copy any original work closely at all. Of course there could be slip-ups, but the same could be said of human generated works, which violate fair use on a regular basis.

quadcore 4y ago

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. The flaw in this argument is the word "artist". If you remove all the pictures from the data source, the AI isnt capable of generating anything. Because it's not an artist.

Timon3 4y ago
Can a human "generate anything" beyond what essentially equates to random noise if they have never had any sensory input? Comparing a "trained" human brain with a "newborn" model seems strange if we actually want to delineate between what is and isn't art.
- ShrimpHawk 4y ago
  Ignoring the straw man argument here yes actually there are plenty of examples of individuals with no outside influence of art styles or references creating artworks. It's called outside art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
  - Timon3 4y ago
    First, it would be great for you to explain how it is a strawman argument. In my eyes the strawman is comparing one system which has had years of training data and time with a system that has a rough structure, but misses everything beyond it. You'd have to at least give them comparable amounts of training data. Even a newly born baby has already had some sensory inputs in the womb, and starts to have a LOT afterwards. Second, your Outsider Art is something completely different, funnily enough a strawman. Surely you're not claiming that the creators of outside art have literally never had any sensory input in their lives? Or do you really think that one painter in two timelines, in one blind and in the other not, would paint exactly the same stuff?
CrimsonRain 4y ago
So if you were born blind, you can draw pictures?

rhino369 4y ago

And copyright law deals with the difference between inspiration and copying. To vastly oversimply it, it depends how close the original is to alleged copy. No reason you can't apply that framework to AI. Where AI might get into more trouble is that you might be able show literal copying in a way that it's impossible to do in a person mind. Like saving chunks of a work into its model.