3 ms·
>>"If you do allow that, the many many affected industries have catastrophic problems." That is the problem. Technically, AI should be allowed to 'read' conten
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>>"If you do allow that, the many many affected industries have catastrophic problems."
That is the problem.
Technically, AI should be allowed to 'read' content, it isn't hidden, and it gets mixed with other content in a 'brain' like thing.
AI and Humans can both spit out a new product that is 'similar' and thus be sued on that similarity.
But it can also produce endless similar variations at low cost and fast.
It is the ease of creating new similar products.
You could just as well prompt the AI "make a Taylor Swift song, but different enough to avoid a lawsuit".
Think this is an entirely new problem that needs a new law beyond copywrite. Copywrite is not the correct law to us for fighting this. Copywrite law doesn't ban someone from reading the source altogether.
- malcolmgreaves 3y agoThere’s an unbelievably vast difference between a human’s creative process and the mechanical reproduction of reweighed training data. Machines don’t create, people do.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoIs there? I think you are giving too much credit to human creativity. Falling prey to the 'human exceptionalism' argument, or to the 'mysterious'. It just assumes humans are unique, or ineffable, it doesn't provide any of the 'how' it is done. Ask GPT something like "write a screen play for Othello using dialog like Tarantino, but with bit of style like Baz Luhrmann". It produces something pretty creative. And if you say, well it is just combining what came before, that also applies to humans, there are no new ideas. Humans being complicated doesn't mean AI wont catch up. Its just time/money/engineering at this point. In Nature, why would Carbon be more holy than Silicon.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhy is the human mind not also a machine?