3 ms·
My issue is not that ML models are comparable, it's that the issue in both cases should be a matter of what is done with output, not the ability to create it.
by Glyptodon 4y ago
My issue is not that ML models are comparable, it's that the issue in both cases should be a matter of what is done with output, not the ability to create it.
People can doodle Micky on napkins or in notebooks or into their Van Gogh poster all they want. In many ways ML is just making that easier. The problems are all what you do with it, given it being so much easier, not with the capability.
- danaris 4y ago...Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's not actually how copyright law works. Regardless, people are already, right now, using these ML art generators to cut real human artists out of the loop while producing products for commercial sale.
- Glyptodon 4y agoI mean the systemic effects are going to be rough. But however copyright law works, if little Timmy draws a Pokemon it's pretty normal and nobody gets fined or goes to jail. The systemic effects from this are going to be because you can get good enough "original" output without needing an actual artist, not because the good enough output will inherently violate copyright.
- danaris 4y agoPart of the problem right now is not just people using generators to produce "good enough" art, but using them to produce art in the style of specific, living, active artists, who rely on being able to sell their art for their livelihoods. The only reason it is able to produce art in their style reliably is because it has been trained on their work without their (or, in fact, anyone's) permission.