5 ms·
I would argue if people are allowed to see your art for free, so should AI models.
by residualmind 4y ago
I would argue if people are allowed to see your art for free, so should AI models.
- peoplefromibiza 4y agopeople are allowed to take a walk in the park, so why cars or tanks or bulldozers are not?
- residualmind 4y agoA bulldozer destroys the park and other people's ability to enjoy it -- active, destructive. Passively training a model on an artwork does not change the art in the slightest -- passive, non-destructive Mind you, this is not talking about the usage rights of images generated from such a model, that's a completely different story and a legal one.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 4y ago> A bulldozer destroys the park and other people's ability to enjoy it hear hear... > Passively training a model on an artwork does not change the art in the slightest copyright holders, I mean individual authors, people who actually produced the content being used, disagree. They say AI is like a bulldozer destroying the park to them. Which technically is true, it's a machine that someone (some interested party maybe?) is trying to disguise as a human, doing human stuff. But it's not. > passive, non-destructive Passive, non-destructive, in this context means - passive: people send the images to you, you don't go looking for them - non-destructive: people authorized you, otherwise it's destructive of their rights.
- dotancohen 4y agoBad argument. Being allowed to see art and being allowed to copy art are two different things. Being allowed to _copy_ is a reserved _right_, that's the root of the word copyright.
- concordDance 4y agoExcept they aren't copying it, but instead drawing inspiration from it. Which all humans have done forever.
- AlexandrB 4y agoThis falls apart for 2 reasons. First, I don't think there's any technical definition of "inspiration" that applies to a deeply nested model of numerical weights. It's a machine. A hammer does not draw inspiration from nails that have been hammered in before. Second an AI is not a human under the law and there's no reason to think that an activity that would be considered "transformative" (e.g. learning then painting something similar) when done by a human would still be considered such if performed by an AI.
- mejutoco 4y agoFollowing your logic: if AI is like humans why don't we tax its work?
- CuriouslyC 4y agoIf an AI ever gets paid for the work it does, I'm sure we will.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoBad argument. Copying art is not the crime, distributing the copied art is the crime. The Disney Gestapo can't send storm troopers to your house if your kid draws a perfect rendition of Mickey, but they can if your kid draws a bunch of perfect renditions and sells them online.
- bakugo 4y agoAI models are not people.