Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9371646" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification