4 ms·

An AI can create as many illegal images as it wants within itself, as that would be akin to imagination. A person interacting with an AI is now a transaction a

An AI can create as many illegal images as it wants within itself, as that would be akin to imagination. A person interacting with an AI is now a transaction and no longer imagination. The key point here is that a lot of legal issues pop up when you trade goods that do not exist when you do things alone and privately. Although the experience with an AI model might be private, my opinion is that long term the things it generates will be seen more as traded commodities than personal items you built with your tools

creer 3y ago
The things the generative AI outputs are very much the result of prompt engineering based on the artist's selections. It's an artist's effort. Using a tool. They tell us how much of a pain it is to arrive at a specific desired result. But I will agree with you that where the law ends up is still up in the air. I sure hope it doesn't end up seeing all the output as "just stuff that was put in". And the law often does not end up on the side favorable to art. Wouldn't be the first time. See music copyright. See street photography in Europe.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  It's new territory, not really just a tool nor just a box of things. I didn't want to overcomplicate my message so I went with asserting the box extreme as it puts the fuller range of legal options on the table. I do think in it's current state it should lean more towards box than tool. A tool typically doesn't create things on its own in a way that is hard to control. You need to use tools under your control. So I see the pain they feel to get specific results as in support of my claim that this is not simply a closed case classification as a tool that bears no responsibility. If it is sharing responsibility with the user for the output, then I consider that a relationship and the output a transaction. This protects users just as much as it limits their freedom of use. We don't control these models, and we should want protection against things it may create or hallucinate given our lack of control I agree that prompt engineering is an art, but imo that gets you as far as claiming the prompt itself as art - not the output from the model given that prompt.
  - creer 3y ago
    I hear the distinction you are trying to make. I think it's been argued before but I don't remember where. Something like "if you use our tool you must credit us - we are part author." That attempt wasn't successful enough to leave much of a mark on me :-) I don't know that the arguments you use are the right ones. Being "under control" has little place in the definition of a tool or medium. Many are valued specifically because they are not under control - with an output too complex to have been under control. Splashing, color mixing, watercolor, impasto, some kinds of paint brushes, lens flare or daylight and weather in photography, rain patterns, all the way to ... "Generative art" which has been around a long time before LLMs and is hard to control, IMO, because the primitives are not humanly intuitive, or add up quickly past what we can intuit. Much of generative art is a matter of trial and error while holding a highly unstable process by the tail. The human artist is responsible for selection and taste but the richness of the output is often entirely the "work" of the process chosen. - Sharing responsibility if you will but the question of who is the author is not really argued anymore. AI generative art seems well in the continuation of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
    - EricMausler 3y ago
      I think you are right on these points. It's also possible previous Generative Art was not sufficiently problematic enough to be thoroughly analyzed. Something feels different about AI than other Generative uncontrolled processes like the ones you mentioned. Can't quite put a description to it yet. My other reply to you goes into detail on the core of where my thoughts are coming from. I agree that giving credit to the entity you got the model from also feels weak. There is just a certain mix of deliberate intention, uncontrolled process, and expected outcomes involved here that also feels weak to classify as just using tooling

creer 3y ago

The things the generative AI outputs are very much the result of prompt engineering based on the artist's selections. It's an artist's effort. Using a tool. They tell us how much of a pain it is to arrive at a specific desired result. But I will agree with you that where the law ends up is still up in the air. I sure hope it doesn't end up seeing all the output as "just stuff that was put in". And the law often does not end up on the side favorable to art. Wouldn't be the first time. See music copyright. See street photography in Europe.

EricMausler 3y ago
It's new territory, not really just a tool nor just a box of things. I didn't want to overcomplicate my message so I went with asserting the box extreme as it puts the fuller range of legal options on the table. I do think in it's current state it should lean more towards box than tool. A tool typically doesn't create things on its own in a way that is hard to control. You need to use tools under your control. So I see the pain they feel to get specific results as in support of my claim that this is not simply a closed case classification as a tool that bears no responsibility. If it is sharing responsibility with the user for the output, then I consider that a relationship and the output a transaction. This protects users just as much as it limits their freedom of use. We don't control these models, and we should want protection against things it may create or hallucinate given our lack of control I agree that prompt engineering is an art, but imo that gets you as far as claiming the prompt itself as art - not the output from the model given that prompt.
- creer 3y ago
  I hear the distinction you are trying to make. I think it's been argued before but I don't remember where. Something like "if you use our tool you must credit us - we are part author." That attempt wasn't successful enough to leave much of a mark on me :-) I don't know that the arguments you use are the right ones. Being "under control" has little place in the definition of a tool or medium. Many are valued specifically because they are not under control - with an output too complex to have been under control. Splashing, color mixing, watercolor, impasto, some kinds of paint brushes, lens flare or daylight and weather in photography, rain patterns, all the way to ... "Generative art" which has been around a long time before LLMs and is hard to control, IMO, because the primitives are not humanly intuitive, or add up quickly past what we can intuit. Much of generative art is a matter of trial and error while holding a highly unstable process by the tail. The human artist is responsible for selection and taste but the richness of the output is often entirely the "work" of the process chosen. - Sharing responsibility if you will but the question of who is the author is not really argued anymore. AI generative art seems well in the continuation of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
  - EricMausler 3y ago
    I think you are right on these points. It's also possible previous Generative Art was not sufficiently problematic enough to be thoroughly analyzed. Something feels different about AI than other Generative uncontrolled processes like the ones you mentioned. Can't quite put a description to it yet. My other reply to you goes into detail on the core of where my thoughts are coming from. I agree that giving credit to the entity you got the model from also feels weak. There is just a certain mix of deliberate intention, uncontrolled process, and expected outcomes involved here that also feels weak to classify as just using tooling