5 ms·

Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who

Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who owns the copyright. You can even do this in public and not make money off of it and that would still be true.

haswell 3y ago
> Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. There are several implications of being a tool that can be explored, if one is interested. A printer manufacturer isnt liable if I use it to print and sell copies of Harry Potter, or some other copyrighted material. Just because I own the printer, doesnt mean I own unrestricted rights to anything that comes out of it. Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? do you have to run everything it produces through a similarity engine? what are the appropriate thresholds that have been established for similarity? The Orange Prince supreme court case was a fascinating exploration of the topic [1]. The SC case is quite an approachable read or listen and even humorous at times. [2] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869
  - haswell 3y ago
    > I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I should also clarify that I do think AI is a tool. And I do think that the questions raised about other tools are interesting to ask relative to AI. My main issue is with the “just a” framing, which usually comes with a strong implication that this tool status means AI should be treated no differently than a paintbrush. > Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? This is one of the key things that establishes a new category of concerns that is not present in other common tools. e.g. if I use a paintbrush to make counterfeit artwork, it is clear that the act of creating the specific output was deliberate (it would be hard to argue that I didn’t know what I was doing over 40 hours of detailed painting). I can’t be sure what will or won’t come of a generative image model.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I pointed out several thoughts it led me to in the post. Another is the tool framing Delinates infringement occurring during the manufacture of the tool, and the use of the tool. It also leads to other interesting points like your last one about the paintbrush. I have never heard of intent being used as a criteria of counterfeit. I don't think this is a new class however. I can use Google images and a printer to quickly produce infringing material. What conclusions can be drawn from viewing generative art models through this lens

haswell 3y ago

> Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. There are several implications of being a tool that can be explored, if one is interested. A printer manufacturer isnt liable if I use it to print and sell copies of Harry Potter, or some other copyrighted material. Just because I own the printer, doesnt mean I own unrestricted rights to anything that comes out of it. Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? do you have to run everything it produces through a similarity engine? what are the appropriate thresholds that have been established for similarity? The Orange Prince supreme court case was a fascinating exploration of the topic [1]. The SC case is quite an approachable read or listen and even humorous at times. [2] 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-869
- haswell 3y ago
  > I think it is an important and insightful distinction, if you are curious to engage. Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I should also clarify that I do think AI is a tool. And I do think that the questions raised about other tools are interesting to ask relative to AI. My main issue is with the “just a” framing, which usually comes with a strong implication that this tool status means AI should be treated no differently than a paintbrush. > Another interesting question is what commercial use of midjourney looks like if you cant trust it to produce content unencumbered by copyright? This is one of the key things that establishes a new category of concerns that is not present in other common tools. e.g. if I use a paintbrush to make counterfeit artwork, it is clear that the act of creating the specific output was deliberate (it would be hard to argue that I didn’t know what I was doing over 40 hours of detailed painting). I can’t be sure what will or won’t come of a generative image model.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >Can you clarify which thing is important/insightful? I want to make sure I’m understanding your comment. I pointed out several thoughts it led me to in the post. Another is the tool framing Delinates infringement occurring during the manufacture of the tool, and the use of the tool. It also leads to other interesting points like your last one about the paintbrush. I have never heard of intent being used as a criteria of counterfeit. I don't think this is a new class however. I can use Google images and a printer to quickly produce infringing material. What conclusions can be drawn from viewing generative art models through this lens