Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 9079048" data-attributes="member: 5889">Thank you for the response! On education, it will be an interesting question of whether AI learning would be considered analogous to human learning, and therefore if that clause would apply.The transformative clause is tricky, because ultimately the AI is still creating original works. If I put in a prompt to an AI that says give me the mona lisa....I'm never getting the mona lisa. I'll get something close, but it will never be a copy, and pretty much always recognizable as something else. The counter here is that an artist of sufficient skill can replicate another artist's style, often to the point of being &quot;unrecognizable&quot; as different except by art experts. Art AIs in many ways are doing the same thing, but less exact than what a skilled human artist can do.The last interesting question will be.... is the AI creator liable or the content maker? If I buy a john deere tractor and run over someone....john deere isn't at fault (most of the time, lawyers will of course try to sue anyone they can).So if an AI is capable of replicating another artist's style...well is the issue that the tool exists or that someone used it maliciously? Just because a tool can potentially do a thing doesn't mean the tool maker is liable....its the person that used the tool to create the content that ultimately violated the artist's rights. That is one argument we may see made as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 9079048, member: 5889"] Thank you for the response! On education, it will be an interesting question of whether AI learning would be considered analogous to human learning, and therefore if that clause would apply. The transformative clause is tricky, because ultimately the AI is still creating original works. If I put in a prompt to an AI that says give me the mona lisa....I'm never getting the mona lisa. I'll get something close, but it will never be a copy, and pretty much always recognizable as something else. The counter here is that an artist of sufficient skill can replicate another artist's style, often to the point of being "unrecognizable" as different except by art experts. Art AIs in many ways are doing the same thing, but less exact than what a skilled human artist can do. The last interesting question will be.... is the AI creator liable or the content maker? If I buy a john deere tractor and run over someone....john deere isn't at fault (most of the time, lawyers will of course try to sue anyone they can). So if an AI is capable of replicating another artist's style...well is the issue that the tool exists or that someone used it maliciously? Just because a tool can potentially do a thing doesn't mean the tool maker is liable....its the person that used the tool to create the content that ultimately violated the artist's rights. That is one argument we may see made as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification