3 ms·

When an artist trains by studying the masters and prior art, and even imitation, they are not acting as copying machines. Unfortunately for your interpretation,

• johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Comparing the way the human brain synthesizes information with their experience and how a computer does it is already a futile point. Take the following point here: humans tend to be very poor at perfectly regurgitating copies of anything. Even well trained copycats will have different muscle memory, different interpretation of theory they apply, different means of coloring and shading, etc. As we've seen, poke an LLM enough and it may simply just spit out a near identical recreation. As of now, it definitely proves that this data isn't just "seen". they very much store it on their databases, and we should treat it as such. >whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate There's nothing nuanced about it in my eyes. Especially if some artists explicitly do not want their art trained upon. Not even 3 years ago Microsoft won a court case via LinkedIn regarding the scaping of their website data. How is this phenomenon any different? Unless we want to destroy Copyright as we know it, it's pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. But we need to tear it down first and just say we don't like current laws.