3 ms·
The argument is "An artist getting inspired by a work and creating something similar is allowed, but photocopying, photographing a painting or statue, or using
by michaelt 2y ago
The argument is "An artist getting inspired by a work and creating something similar is allowed, but photocopying, photographing a painting or statue, or using samples in music-making can be fraught with legal problems.
One of the major dividing lines between legal and illegal is whether it's a purely mechanical process, or done by human hands. The training of LLMs and diffusion models is a purely mechanical process, more like photocopying or photographing than an artist gaining inspiration"
- Workaccount2 2y ago>but photocopying, photographing a painting or statue, or using samples in music-making can be fraught with legal problems. That's part of where I think a lot of confusion is - LLM training doesn't do any of that. There is no coherent corpus of data in these models.
- throwaway4aday 2y agoThe training process is not purely mechanical. The amount of time that goes into selecting, cleaning, reformatting and otherwise preparing the training data is significant not to mention all of the other work involved in the actual training. If your measure is simply the amount of work done by humans then we should simply reclassify ML models as art pieces and dismiss all of the criticism as gatekeeping by people who don't understand hypermodern art.