3 ms·
I think you are misreading that argument. If I understand correctly the point is that you are already allowed to look at and make derivative works of art - the
by burnished 4y ago
I think you are misreading that argument. If I understand correctly the point is that you are already allowed to look at and make derivative works of art - the machine version of that is not fundamentally any different, especially since it is not reproducing works in whole but rather reproducing a 'style'.
That isnt an endorsement of the argument, my point is that you dont have to believe the black box has any independent intelligence to draw an analogy between what it does and what we already allow.
- haswell 4y agoI understand their argument, but I'm arguing that their argument must fundamentally imply some form of underlying consciousness, or at least some before-now-nonexistent property that elevates it above an ordinary computer program and makes it compatible with a reading/interpretation of the law independent of the material differences between the AI program and a human. Setting aside the bandwidth and compute issues for a moment, if Stable Diffusion was a tool that when prompted, downloaded and ingested 2.4 billion images (regardless of license), ran some really complex algorithms on them, and then spit out a derivative result - in other words, take out the AI - I think people would view the tool very differently. At some point along the way, it seems people jump to a belief that because of <some component / step in the process>, this is no longer just a computer program that scraped the entire Internet without asking.