3 ms·
When did everyone in these circles flip flop from thinking that copyright is fake and that anyone who tries to enforce it should not be taken seriously, to thin
by jovial_cavalier 3y ago
When did everyone in these circles flip flop from thinking that copyright is fake and that anyone who tries to enforce it should not be taken seriously, to thinking that it's a serious issue and has to be addressed?
I'm quite bearish on AI in general, but the whole copyright argument is nonsense to me. How is it any different than a human learning from public material in their field? My understanding is that you are not distributing copyrighted material verbatim, but a set of weights that were trained on copyrighted material. Just like how a writer reads a lot of other writers and becomes a better writer.
If we applied this same standard to human authors, couldn't we say that every narrative is actually the intellectual property of some unnamed hunter-gatherer who described how he killed an antelope to a captive audience?
- krapp 3y agoI feel like we need to put a banner up that says "We don't apply the same standards to AI that we do to people because AIs are software, not people." And we can just point to it instead of wasting time mentioning what should be obvious, instead of entertaining these constant reductio ad absurdum arguments based on false equivalence.
- jovial_cavalier 3y agoI don't really think it's reductio ad absurdum. If something is okay for me to do, then I can make software to automate it. It's okay for me to take existing artwork and use it as reference to make the artwork I want to make. I can make software to help me do that, like photoshop. But I can't make an AI tool to help me do that. Why? What is the actual difference?