4 ms·
> Human brains can produce near duplicates of things they have seen in the past. Most humans cannot, and this is important, because the fact that most humans c
by haswell 4y ago
> Human brains can produce near duplicates of things they have seen in the past.
Most humans cannot, and this is important, because the fact that most humans cannot arguably played a role in the formulation of all current rules.
So can cameras. And there are laws that restrict where cameras can be pointed in places that do not restrict human sight, because the two kinds of "seeing" are distinctly different.
Layering AI into the mix doesn't suddenly remove or mitigate the technical realities of the software.
> but it doesn't follow that any generated image is infringing.
I agree, and this is not my claim.
- pixl97 4y agoLaws very rarely restrict where cameras can be pointed, and most those laws focus on commercial redistribution. They almost never stop individuals from doing so. Furthermore the laws tend to be a complete wreck of logical paradoxes that fall apart in situations like this, hence forcing more case law to be generated.
- haswell 4y agoI think the reason those restrictions exist is more important here than the rarity of the restriction. I argue this because I think the magnitude of the implications of unrestricted ingestion of public and private data is similar to the magnitude of the implications of unrestricted camera use without limit, i.e. as good a candidate for a restriction as those camera use cases currently restricted by law. The reason you cannot record what's going on in a bathroom has as much to do with the implications of the recording as it does with the implications of being observed in the first place. I don't disagree about the ensuing mess of laws, but I don't think we have a reason to believe Stable Diffusion will be spared from it.