3 ms·
The fallacy is thinking that macine learning is like human learning. It is not the same at all, and yet people continuously conflate the two whenever discussion
by rendall 4y ago
The fallacy is thinking that macine learning is like human learning. It is not the same at all, and yet people continuously conflate the two whenever discussions like this come up. "Because humans learn, there is no problem with AIs being trained on an illustrator's entire corpus so that it outputs works convincing enough to be a forgery" is the argument you are making and it's a bad one.
- stavros 4y agoWhy does it matter how well it works? If a human produces a forgery, does that constitute copyright infringement? If it's inspired but sufficiently changed, is that a new work? There's already a line, what does it matter who produced the work? Just judge everyone using the same criteria.
- rendall 4y ago"convincing enough to be a forgery" was the deliberate choice of phrase not "forgery". An illustrator who spent many unpaid hours to hone their craft should get to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. A kid with a GPU and a model who trains it on that artist's corpus is stealing, not "learning". Every illustration from that model is theft. Even if you don't find the moral argument convincing (and you should), legally protecting creators will encourage creativity, which is the whole point of copyright, while allowing anyone with a laptop to coopt their work will discourage it.
- stavros 4y agoIf your argument is that everything produced by an AI is theft, I don't think we'll agree. I don't even know how we'd begin to tell who each Midjourney image stole from.
- rendall 4y agoYou have twice now misread something I have written and strawmanned a weaker argument. But, yes, if Midjourney trained on copyrighted works, anything produced by it is in my opinion IP theft.