8 ms·

This is just a neural network fed with some dog pictures, it's not really "thinking", it doesn't "create" anything. In other words, it's not (yet) artificial ge

by kolme 11y ago

This is just a neural network fed with some dog pictures, it's not really "thinking", it doesn't "create" anything. In other words, it's not (yet) artificial general intelligence. As I see it, it's just some software which creates an output given an input. In essence, a tool. So I guess, unless otherwise stated in the license of said software, the ownership lays on the operator. Maybe, one can argue that the engineers who "fed" the NN do have the rights of the output. But the software is not clever enough for me to see here a similar case to that of wikipedia, the photographer and the monkey.

flebron 11y ago
To a sufficiently advanced alien species, _we_ are neural networks fed with some pictures (and sounds, smells, touches, and tastes) :)
sp332 11y ago
You don't have to have general intelligence to be creative. Different networks can create different results with the same inputs. It's not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GnAI3nrsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GnAI3nrsQ
rtkwe 11y ago
It is affected by that case though because of the policy and guidelines it spawned. > “Because copyright law is limited to ‘original intellectual conceptions of the author,’ the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,” said the US Copyright Office in its latest compendium of practices published Tuesday. “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.” and > In new guidance the USCO has ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention. Source [0] This feels like it falls into the 'by machines without human intervention.' There's no meaningful contributions from a human. All that said this will eventually be an issue (hopefully) when machine intelligence actually takes off or human uploads become a viable operation. Though maybe by then we'll be less obsessed with every idea having to have an owner, but that's neither here nor there. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-bus...
- spiritplumber 11y ago
  Monetary concerns aside, I like seeing "by spiritplumber" on my work, even when I'm giving it out.
  - rtkwe 11y ago
    True and I'm a big proponent of attribution. I just think that in a lot of cases the person who's assigned ownership of things like a lyric, melody, etc. is really just the lucky one who got to have their name put on a long string of remixes. This is especially bad in music and specifically hip hop where building on earlier music is one of the core tenants. It's easier when the thing in question is still whole and unchanged but ownership of bits and pieces of a copyright work is troublesome to me.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >There's no meaningful contributions from a human. Humans provided the training data. Humans wrote the source. Humans compiled and ran the program.
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    Humans provided the input photograph
    - olefoo 11y ago
      humans caused the photograph to be created... authority is becoming confused. The notion of Intellectual Property is becoming obviously self-contradictory. Who owns the copyright to your soul? Is it Facebook? Is it Google? Did you accidentally assign all of your Intellectual Property to WR Hambrecht? Can you be required to perform on command like a dancing bear? Are the excrescences of your soul merely the feedstock of an industrial process that requires human fleshbrains for supervised learning processes the output of which will be the property of the state since they are formed without human agency? Bullshit. Intellectual Property is Ideal Theft. There are no original ideas. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. There is nothing to be afraid of; resume shopping and avoid panic buying.
ilzmastr 11y ago
I agree with you: open source linear regression software trained on open source data creating amusing output when misused doesn't constitute an "individual without rights yet" in my book
_lce0 11y ago
> This is just a neural network fed with some dog pictures, it's not really "thinking", it doesn't "create" anything. That output image, was indeed created by the program. We tend to think that only we, humans, have the ability to create, but some animals create, like birds do nests for example. Also, the fact that you can understand how a deterministic program produces a pseudo-random digital work (like an image in this example) does not make the program "dumb" nor intelligent-less --if we could only understand better what means being intelligent, maybe we not be having this conversation :)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
x5n1 11y ago
derivative works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

by kolme 11y ago

flebron 11y ago

To a sufficiently advanced alien species, _we_ are neural networks fed with some pictures (and sounds, smells, touches, and tastes) :)

sp332 11y ago

You don't have to have general intelligence to be creative. Different networks can create different results with the same inputs. It's not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GnAI3nrsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GnAI3nrsQ

rtkwe 11y ago

It is affected by that case though because of the policy and guidelines it spawned. > “Because copyright law is limited to ‘original intellectual conceptions of the author,’ the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,” said the US Copyright Office in its latest compendium of practices published Tuesday. “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.” and > In new guidance the USCO has ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention. Source [0] This feels like it falls into the 'by machines without human intervention.' There's no meaningful contributions from a human. All that said this will eventually be an issue (hopefully) when machine intelligence actually takes off or human uploads become a viable operation. Though maybe by then we'll be less obsessed with every idea having to have an owner, but that's neither here nor there. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-bus...

spiritplumber 11y ago
Monetary concerns aside, I like seeing "by spiritplumber" on my work, even when I'm giving it out.
- rtkwe 11y ago
  True and I'm a big proponent of attribution. I just think that in a lot of cases the person who's assigned ownership of things like a lyric, melody, etc. is really just the lucky one who got to have their name put on a long string of remixes. This is especially bad in music and specifically hip hop where building on earlier music is one of the core tenants. It's easier when the thing in question is still whole and unchanged but ownership of bits and pieces of a copyright work is troublesome to me.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>There's no meaningful contributions from a human. Humans provided the training data. Humans wrote the source. Humans compiled and ran the program.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  Humans provided the input photograph
  - olefoo 11y ago
    humans caused the photograph to be created... authority is becoming confused. The notion of Intellectual Property is becoming obviously self-contradictory. Who owns the copyright to your soul? Is it Facebook? Is it Google? Did you accidentally assign all of your Intellectual Property to WR Hambrecht? Can you be required to perform on command like a dancing bear? Are the excrescences of your soul merely the feedstock of an industrial process that requires human fleshbrains for supervised learning processes the output of which will be the property of the state since they are formed without human agency? Bullshit. Intellectual Property is Ideal Theft. There are no original ideas. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. There is nothing to be afraid of; resume shopping and avoid panic buying.

ilzmastr 11y ago

I agree with you: open source linear regression software trained on open source data creating amusing output when misused doesn't constitute an "individual without rights yet" in my book

_lce0 11y ago

> This is just a neural network fed with some dog pictures, it's not really "thinking", it doesn't "create" anything. That output image, was indeed created by the program. We tend to think that only we, humans, have the ability to create, but some animals create, like birds do nests for example. Also, the fact that you can understand how a deterministic program produces a pseudo-random digital work (like an image in this example) does not make the program "dumb" nor intelligent-less --if we could only understand better what means being intelligent, maybe we not be having this conversation :)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

x5n1 11y ago

derivative works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work