CapnZapp
Legend
I was talking about word usage not legalities. Read what I wrote again.
The AI Red Scare is only harming artists and needs to stop.
- Thread starter Anon Adderlan
- Start date
I was talking about word usage not legalities. Read what I wrote again.
NaturalZero
Hero
Nothing is being stolen. Nothing is being removed. AI doesn't "consume" art and make it disappear anymore than a person looking at it. Is that you think it works? You thought AI was literally removing art that other people made?
You put a picture online and someone looked at, got inspiration, and made something different that isn't that image. That's not piracy.
Necropolitan
Adventurer
The same goes for digital piracy.
An AI isn't 'someone,' it's a program that copies the entire image and then regurgitates parts of it.
AI aren't the same as people.
NaturalZero
Hero
Is AI taking things behind paywalls? Because if you post an image here in public and then I make a different image inspired by it, that's clearly not piracy.
If it's not a person, it can't steal.
Necropolitan
Adventurer
You're the one claiming copying doesn't violate copyright.
Yeah, the creators are stealing to feed it.
NaturalZero
Hero
The AI generated image isn't a copy any more that anyone's fan art is a copy. It's original.
I hope you realize that anytime anyone posts an image online, every computer that every sees that copies it, right? You get that every original work ever put out digitally is copied a bajillion times by computers. You're essentially claiming that viewing anything online on computer is a copyright violation because a private PC made a copy in order to display it.
By your logic, a computer already copied it the moment you posted in public on server. It's already a copy. It's already public. If a person or computer sees it in public and produced an entirely original image, nothing has has been taken. Nothing has been removed.
Celebrim
Legend
The problem with analogies is that unless there is a one to one and onto relationship between the analogy and the thing that it is supposed to represent, then the analogy exists to confuse and obfuscate truth and not illustrate it. And this is just such an analogy. It exists entirely to keep people from thinking clearly about the issue by providing a false analogy. There is no meat or sausage in the real thing we are discussing. It's obvious why you'd rather talk about meat and sausage than the thing itself. There isn't really a way to even make your sausage and meat analogy work because the things are too different.
For example, sausage is a "collage" or "mosaic" of meat, but as I've already pointed out that analogy of a collage or a mosaic is itself deceitful and wrong about how AI text and art is produced and those that use it are liars (and have to use human produced collages to represent the supposed AI work). The AI doesn't really store pieces of what it consumes. It stores the contextual relationships it discovered between the things. The more it trains the less information it has about any one text or image. It's learning patterns, and the patterns between thing that make up language or art are not and cannot be copyrighted. Nor does your analogy work because it didn't take anything from the owner. It didn't even use a meat printer to make an illegal copy of the meat (if that even could be a thing and even if the law protected against it). A better analogy would be that it looked at the meat and made a painting of it, but that analogy is so weird that while it is more accurate than your sausage analogy it's probably best that we just don't use analogies at all because I doubt you understand why that analogy is more accurate.
No, I don't. That's the point. I see no (relevant) difference between a human mind being inspired by art and an AI mind being inspired by art.
No, in my case, quite the contrary. Digital piracy is obviously theft. The people going "If purchasing isn't owning then piracy isn't theft" are moral cretins that are trying to justify theft. Even if I can see why you might worry about the digitization of information and the lack of physical copies, that still doesn't justify theft. But no piracy occurred in this case because no permanent copy of the information was made. @CapnZapp 's analogy doesn't work because it doesn't represent what actually happened. (And I again protest that analogies don't bring clarity, but only confusion.) What really happened was more like a student in a trade school opening the hood of a car to see how cars worked, then giving it back intact to the owner. But again, I don't think analogies are actually helpful.
In reality, the only copy that was made was the temporary copy that is made when anything on the internet is viewed, which is an essential aspect of the technology without which the whole internet must be taken down. Do you understand how the internet works?
If I read something I had every right to read and make fair use of the information then I have done no wrong. The burden of proof you have to make is that teaching an AI isn't fair use of information. I argue that it's analogous to teaching a child. I would point out that a copyright only applies to copies of the information, and not to original information produced by studying that information. Everyone is influenced by everything that they have ever read, but that doesn't mean you have to cite everything you ever read. John Williams is influenced by everything he ever heard, but isn't required to list all of his inspirations in his liner notes. Transformative work is transformative work.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
No, they are not. At the very least, it's not obvious that they are.
If I check a book out of a library, and read it to my child, it's not theft if either I or the child learn something from that experience. If I can later produce an original summary of the events of the book, that's not theft. I don't owe the book's author for my ability to remember a summary of the events of the book.
If I check out a CD from a library (bear with me, I'm old) and listen to music, if I am inspired to write my own original music that's not theft. Yes, if you can show that the music is too similar (and the courts tend to be idiots about that but that's another story) then you could show plagiarism, but one thing that is I think immediately obvious to any observer is that the images AI creates - however amateur and sloppy they might be - are original images that have never before existed. The AI shows actual originality, or at least as much originality as we could expect of 90% of the human race. It probably outperforms most humans in originality. So no plagiarism takes place and since the AI has no sentience or understanding and is just a tool (again this is a thing new to the human race, intelligence without sentience in matters of things like speech) my contention is that if you prompt engineer in such a way that you produce something which isn't sufficiently original then the user is at fault not the machine. (The machine can never really be at fault.)
There is no theft. The content creators are worried about the student surpassing the master or at least working at a wage below what they want to work for, but again that's back to smashing typewriters. It has nothing to do with theft.
aramis erak
Legend
The only difference readily apparent to me is that one is a natural neural network, and the other an artificial one.
Oh, wait, there's a second... speed.... the artificial neural network gets it onto the digital medium way faster.
aramis erak
Legend
by current technical standards, it's still not generally accepted that current neural net software, especially LLMs, count as minds.
Similar Threads
