5 ms·
People misleadingly conflate these two concepts all the time, but no, human learning and machine learning are not equivalent. If you want to learn to draw in t
by rendall 3y ago
People misleadingly conflate these two concepts all the time, but no, human learning and machine learning are not equivalent.
If you want to learn to draw in the style of Moebius then go for it. If you want to train an AI on Moebius' work, you should ask permission from Moebius' estate, since they stand to lose revenue by your model.
- pc86 3y agoYou're right, because clearly anyone who takes an AI-generated Moebius-style image and puts it on a blog post about message queues or a recipe or whatever would have just bought a licensed Moebius image otherwise.
- freejazz 3y agoSo your argument is that infringement is okay, because they would have done it anyway? Not a great legal defense
- pc86 3y agoI'm replying to "you should ask permission from Moebius' estate, since they stand to lose revenue by your model" - there are no damages. Whether it's infringement or not is not really relevant to that point.
- rendall 3y agoYou brought up a thing that was not machine learning to argue that machine learning does not infringe?
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoWhy do we think that the moebius estate deserves that revenue? Why is that the optimal state of the world, rather than just a capitalist incentive to create more art?
- rendall 3y agoYour issue is with capitalism apparently. Like it or not, creators rely on copyright to make a living and have an incentive to create more, and quality, art.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoMy issue is not with capitalism but with assuming the present rules of asset ownership are optimal! If we could make housing free - conjure it out of thin air - it would be really bad for landlords. They rely on that income to make a living! We should still obviously do it. More of a thing that people want is usually good.
- Nevermark 3y agoWhat exactly would we want to incentivize landlords for if land was free? ??? They are not creating anything unique or otherwise. It’s not remotely comparable.
- yffi_bit 3y agoConjuring things out of thin air also tends to have side-effects, and it's better not to stop at the first-order effect of an action before going ahead and "just doing it". Concretely with content generation: if the disregard for copyright leads to a world where people no longer make the effort to produce and think about new things, the only things that you will consume will be produced by AI. Reminds me of The Matrix :-)
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoConjuring things out of thin air does not have side effects because it is not possible. The whole point of the phrase was to describe a hypothetical situation with no side effects to avoid sideways arguments about "but actually here's some bad things that would happen if you did that unrelated to the central argument".
- lostmsu 3y agoEhm, what exactly is the difference between estate revenue loss due to AI vs my works in the style?
- slavboj 3y agoWhat if I only train on licensed human art "in the style of moebius" but legally distinct - you can't copyright a "style". A lot of critics seem to be arguing for a conception of copyright that's far broader than actually exists as a subsidy for artists (by which everyone in effect means Disney et al).
- gaganyaan 3y agoWhy? They also stand to lose revenue if a human does it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]