3 ms·

> if you wished to include such images in training, you would also need an explainable AI that could tell you exactly what training inputs are influencing its o

> if you wished to include such images in training, you would also need an explainable AI that could tell you exactly what training inputs are influencing its output. This is a huge leap that would change copyright law dramatically, even for humans. Youre asserting that copyright doesn’t just protect from reproduction, but from use as an example to learn from. I think this would break copyright altogether. What musician or artist can say a work is 100% original and does not incorporate any details or concepts from work they’ve seen / listened to / read? I know people hold that position, but it’s important to be transparent that applying copyright to training/learning (in addition to output) would be an overhaul of copyrigh, not a clear and obvious application of the law as it stands.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bee_rider 3y ago
You only have to make that leap if you suppose that machine learning algorithms actually learn and then become capable of creating their own original works, rather than producing mechanical transformations of their inputs. Which, I don’t think that’s an inherently absurd statement. I mean, at some point humans physically exist, so a sufficiently complex artificial being could exactly replicate our physically processes, and it would be hard (imo) to argue that such a thing isn’t a person. But I don’t see the non-big-leap option. Either we admit that machines can actually perform creative works which are their own ideas, or we call the thing they do a derivative work, and we admit that we can’t just eyeball the difference between an original work and a derivative work anymore. That there’s something intrinsically special about having a human in the loop.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > You only have to make that leap if you suppose that machine learning algorithms actually learn and then become capable of creating their own original works, rather than producing mechanical transformations of their inputs. Why do you think humans can do that, and that what we call “original works” of humans are not just mechanical transformations of the human’s inputs. How, in a universe of deterministic physical laws, is it possible for a human to do anything else?
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    That seems pretty close to what I said in the next paragraph, just approaching from the other direction.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bee_rider 3y ago

You only have to make that leap if you suppose that machine learning algorithms actually learn and then become capable of creating their own original works, rather than producing mechanical transformations of their inputs. Which, I don’t think that’s an inherently absurd statement. I mean, at some point humans physically exist, so a sufficiently complex artificial being could exactly replicate our physically processes, and it would be hard (imo) to argue that such a thing isn’t a person. But I don’t see the non-big-leap option. Either we admit that machines can actually perform creative works which are their own ideas, or we call the thing they do a derivative work, and we admit that we can’t just eyeball the difference between an original work and a derivative work anymore. That there’s something intrinsically special about having a human in the loop.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> You only have to make that leap if you suppose that machine learning algorithms actually learn and then become capable of creating their own original works, rather than producing mechanical transformations of their inputs. Why do you think humans can do that, and that what we call “original works” of humans are not just mechanical transformations of the human’s inputs. How, in a universe of deterministic physical laws, is it possible for a human to do anything else?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  That seems pretty close to what I said in the next paragraph, just approaching from the other direction.