2 ms·
I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by pa
by tremon 4y ago
I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by paint with the works produced by AI? Are you saying that if I throw a can of white paint against a Jackson Pollock painting, the paint itself is producing a novel work? That if a million printing presses print out a million dictionaries, one of them is bound to produce the entire works of Shakespeare?
- fauxpause_ 4y agoMy point is that copyright does not care about the means by which a work is generated. It is merely whether the output is substantially similar. If a printing press randomly produces Hamlet, you cannot sell it. That does not mean you cannot generate something that is sellable without violating copyright by printing random words. There is a small amount of attention paid to whether an artist knew of a work that someone claims was copied. Especially in the literary world with hacks who try to steal from successful authors with pathetic claims. But they tend not to hold a lot of weight. It just makes it easier to dismiss trolls. AI is a tool. It is not sentient. It is paint.