4 ms·
> So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? w
by blibble 4y ago
> So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you?
when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know
- adamsmith143 4y agoI'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.
- GaggiX 4y agoSo, reading your comment, I can infer that the main problem is not the fact that the AI was trained on copyrighted data, but the fact that its performance outperforms that of a human artist.
- blibble 4y agono, that's just my rhetorical response to a stupid hypothetical argument
- GaggiX 4y agoBut the question was not so stupid as it underlines the actual problem of AI, the scale on which it operates, not the fact that a machine could learn similarly to a human. I found the question pretty clever.