Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Swanosaurus" data-source="post: 9373767" data-attributes="member: 7044220">Yes, exactly.A human is a person, and as such, we usually consider them to be an end in themselves. They have a moral and legal right to self-expression. We consider their expression as something they originate, even if they wouldn't have been able to create without many kinds of input. They can decide what to create (within their abilities), and if they decide to plagiarize, they can be held accountable both morally and legally.Now if you want to grant an AI the same moral and legal rights to self-expression (because you'd have to do that if you want to argue that their work can be considered anything but the result of someone using a tool to make a profit from other people's creative work), you'd be treating them as a person, at least in some regards. In consequence, at the very least the AI would have to own copyright of the works it creates. If you claim that the AI does the same as a human, the same moral and legal standards would have to apply, and therefore, you'd have to grant current image-generating AI some level of personhood.Luckily, I'm pretty sure we won't have to open that particular can of worms (personhood for AIs?) for a long time, if ever; because for now, an AI - within the context of this discussion - is nothing more than a tool that is used to turn a profit from the creative work of artists without paying them a dime.</blockquote>