3 ms·
Now imagine you're an expert witness on the stand in the case that eventually settles this. I don't think this will be persuasive even if it's technically sound
by Kye 4y ago
Now imagine you're an expert witness on the stand in the case that eventually settles this. I don't think this will be persuasive even if it's technically sound. How you end up with a copyrighted work doesn't seem relevant: the model still produced something eerily similar to a copyrighted work.
"Copyright laundering" will be the phrase of the era. Throw Picasso in with a thousand reproductions, wash it with DeviantArt, get Picasso back out. Does it matter than it's algorithmically derived rather than a stroke-by-stroke reproduction? There's probably already ample case law around reproductions to deal with this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kilgnad 4y agoIt's technically sound though. Let me give you an example. y = f(x) = x + 2 This is what's memorized. But with that equation you can plug in a specific x. to get: 3 = f(1) = 1 + 2 The training set here would be (1,3). What is memorized is y = f(x) = x + 2. You can literally see that (1,3) is NOT in the model EVEN though that model CAN produce a (1,3) given the right input. I think the technical part of this is sound. People will just take the face value explanation which is I see a 3! therefore a THREE was memorized. But technically a 3 WAS not memorized. This is categorically true. You are Right. The persuasive part of this argument is not very good though as you can see by this thread.