6 ms·

humans and AI aren't the same. There's no reason to think it will have to be the same.

tivert 3y ago
> humans and AI aren't the same. There's no reason to think it will have to be the same. Exactly. It would be entirely legitimate to legally privilege human learning without allowing that privilege to transfer (by analogy) to machine learning. There are a lot of people who want use analogy to force the transfer of that privilege because 1) they judge they can profit handsomely and/or 2) they're technology enthusiasts who've read too much sci-fi.
keikobadthebad 3y ago
Yes there is - why should a well-proven law against plagiarism just evaporate if the human gets an ai to do it instead of does it themselves? Either the law should be revoked wholesale or it will have to be applied wholesale.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  I don't think you understood what I wrote.
jncfhnb 3y ago
They do have to be the same because learning is not something you can constrain with law pragmatically. Style and structure is not protected and can be mimicked so it is trivial to do parallel construction for any stylistic ideal even if the law says you can’t train on the original. Society does not benefit from these extra steps. Specific IP like characters are already perfectly well protected by copyright. It does not infringe on anything to learn about Batman. Just “training for the heck of it” without any justification for limits besides hurting the artists feelings who put their art in public kinda sucks for them but the alternative is just saying that only but doing otherwise is just asking for only large corporations to be able to train. And it’s not like artists will be comped for that either. It’ll just be them losing out because they put it on a “free” platform.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  You can train all the shit you want but if you train on someone else's materials without a license and your product makes money you should be forced to stop selling your product and to transfer the profits to the people who you took advantage of for your own I just enrichment. If you do it a lot you should go to jail.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    So if you create a cool new art style, and I copy the style by hand, and then I use my copy to train a model that can now generate your style without having ever seen your work it’s ok? Because if you think this is not ok then you are arguing that people own styles. And they don’t. And if you think it is ok then you’re just arguing for pointless extra steps.
    - LegitShady 3y ago
      if you create derivitave works of my projects to use in your commercial AI, you're still abusing my work for your own gain.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Copying a style is not a derivative work. You can copy someone’s style just fine. You cannot own a style. I’m perfectly within my rights to make art with your artistic style. And I’m perfectly within my rights to train a bot on my own works. So what’s your argument? What am I not allowed to do with this poorly conceived law?
        LegitShady 3y ago
        Ya if you make art to train sure because you own the rights to that art. If you take other peoples art without license as has largely happened, no.
        3y ago

> humans and AI aren't the same. There's no reason to think it will have to be the same. Exactly. It would be entirely legitimate to legally privilege human learning without allowing that privilege to transfer (by analogy) to machine learning. There are a lot of people who want use analogy to force the transfer of that privilege because 1) they judge they can profit handsomely and/or 2) they're technology enthusiasts who've read too much sci-fi.

keikobadthebad 3y ago

Yes there is - why should a well-proven law against plagiarism just evaporate if the human gets an ai to do it instead of does it themselves? Either the law should be revoked wholesale or it will have to be applied wholesale.

LegitShady 3y ago
I don't think you understood what I wrote.

jncfhnb 3y ago

They do have to be the same because learning is not something you can constrain with law pragmatically. Style and structure is not protected and can be mimicked so it is trivial to do parallel construction for any stylistic ideal even if the law says you can’t train on the original. Society does not benefit from these extra steps. Specific IP like characters are already perfectly well protected by copyright. It does not infringe on anything to learn about Batman. Just “training for the heck of it” without any justification for limits besides hurting the artists feelings who put their art in public kinda sucks for them but the alternative is just saying that only but doing otherwise is just asking for only large corporations to be able to train. And it’s not like artists will be comped for that either. It’ll just be them losing out because they put it on a “free” platform.

LegitShady 3y ago
You can train all the shit you want but if you train on someone else's materials without a license and your product makes money you should be forced to stop selling your product and to transfer the profits to the people who you took advantage of for your own I just enrichment. If you do it a lot you should go to jail.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  So if you create a cool new art style, and I copy the style by hand, and then I use my copy to train a model that can now generate your style without having ever seen your work it’s ok? Because if you think this is not ok then you are arguing that people own styles. And they don’t. And if you think it is ok then you’re just arguing for pointless extra steps.
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    if you create derivitave works of my projects to use in your commercial AI, you're still abusing my work for your own gain.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Copying a style is not a derivative work. You can copy someone’s style just fine. You cannot own a style. I’m perfectly within my rights to make art with your artistic style. And I’m perfectly within my rights to train a bot on my own works. So what’s your argument? What am I not allowed to do with this poorly conceived law?
      - LegitShady 3y ago
        Ya if you make art to train sure because you own the rights to that art. If you take other peoples art without license as has largely happened, no.
        3y ago