3 ms·

Are we equating the capabilities of humans and AI now? AI isn't "imitimating" it's synthesizing an output, in seconds, based on a giant database of art scraped

Are we equating the capabilities of humans and AI now? AI isn't "imitimating" it's synthesizing an output, in seconds, based on a giant database of art scraped from the internet by human researchers, without permission from those artists, to be crystallized in a form that will outlive every artist born and yet born till the heat death of the universe. If copyright doesn't distinguish between that then copyright needs updated. It's a tool, not a person, and one that people want to use commercially so they can create the billion pieces of art to train it on themselves.

nuancebydefault 4y ago
Any copyright currently is about the not-for-free right to _copy_, imitate-right on the other end, still has to be invented. I don't see how that would work in practice.
- Riverheart 4y ago
  AI isn't "imitating" anything. Imitation is a conscious effort a human makes. Any artist could try copying someone's style by looking at a piece of art. AI can't look at an image and say "I'll imitate that". A human "trains" an AI on images to create a model of how X looks with different examples and piecemeals together something that looks new but is in fact a million tiny data copies from all the images it was trained on so the original source cant be detected. The AI can't do anything it hasn't been trained on. As I understand it, while it may not copy the exact image it has copied data associated with the image in a way that copyright law could never have anticipated. So the solution is simple, train your models on your own stuff if you want to claim copyright to the work commercially or pay artists for your training data.
  - nuancebydefault 4y ago
    It always boils down to the same question when discussing a.i. Is there a difference between people's imagination (producing art that is considered new, but is unmistakably influenced by existing pieces of art) and copying/transforming and stitching together pieces of existing art? In a few years from now, probably nobody can tell the difference anymore. Same question holds for the reasoning and intelligence capabilities of a.i. Soon we can't tell the difference in at least several knowledge/skill domains. Is there any difference, will become a hypothetical question.
    - Riverheart 4y ago
      Even if there was no difference at all in the process of image generation between AI and humans I would argue humans and AI should not be held to the same standard of law (and we're not even talking about true AI). A human that copies someone will die. An AI can live, multiply, and be improved forever. Humans will never compete against anything they wind up being capable of. Society is built for humans not AI.
pas 4y ago
Not the capabilities, the results. One one hand I support authors' rights to place restrictions on their art for a limited time. (Not the current forever + 75 years.) So let them draw whatever lines they want in the sand. Because otherwise there's no general good way to delineate generative AI from other tools. It's a very fast magic brush. (You might have seen timelapse videos of artists do a digital painting. It's already pretty magical. Especially to me, because I can't even draw to eggs to match.)

nuancebydefault 4y ago

Any copyright currently is about the not-for-free right to _copy_, imitate-right on the other end, still has to be invented. I don't see how that would work in practice.

Riverheart 4y ago
AI isn't "imitating" anything. Imitation is a conscious effort a human makes. Any artist could try copying someone's style by looking at a piece of art. AI can't look at an image and say "I'll imitate that". A human "trains" an AI on images to create a model of how X looks with different examples and piecemeals together something that looks new but is in fact a million tiny data copies from all the images it was trained on so the original source cant be detected. The AI can't do anything it hasn't been trained on. As I understand it, while it may not copy the exact image it has copied data associated with the image in a way that copyright law could never have anticipated. So the solution is simple, train your models on your own stuff if you want to claim copyright to the work commercially or pay artists for your training data.
- nuancebydefault 4y ago
  It always boils down to the same question when discussing a.i. Is there a difference between people's imagination (producing art that is considered new, but is unmistakably influenced by existing pieces of art) and copying/transforming and stitching together pieces of existing art? In a few years from now, probably nobody can tell the difference anymore. Same question holds for the reasoning and intelligence capabilities of a.i. Soon we can't tell the difference in at least several knowledge/skill domains. Is there any difference, will become a hypothetical question.
  - Riverheart 4y ago
    Even if there was no difference at all in the process of image generation between AI and humans I would argue humans and AI should not be held to the same standard of law (and we're not even talking about true AI). A human that copies someone will die. An AI can live, multiply, and be improved forever. Humans will never compete against anything they wind up being capable of. Society is built for humans not AI.

pas 4y ago

Not the capabilities, the results. One one hand I support authors' rights to place restrictions on their art for a limited time. (Not the current forever + 75 years.) So let them draw whatever lines they want in the sand. Because otherwise there's no general good way to delineate generative AI from other tools. It's a very fast magic brush. (You might have seen timelapse videos of artists do a digital painting. It's already pretty magical. Especially to me, because I can't even draw to eggs to match.)