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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9030413" data-attributes="member: 6796468">The issue with the Warhol thing is that it uses someone else's art -directly-. It isn't influenced or guided by someone's art. He just re-printed it in different colors.The AIs that are on debate don't sample someone else's art and composite it together. They learn by looking at a bunch of art and develops their own based on what it's learned based on a preponderance of the data.If 200 artists do a portrait as face-on with symmetry and 10 do the portrait as looking off to the left or right slightly it learns people prefer portraits face-on and creates more that look directly at the 'camera'.The underlying assumption that AI art is just stealing people's artwork and compositing it together like a puzzle is the reason the current challenge against it is likely to fail. The artists bringing the legal challenge against it didn't understand the technology when they brought the case, and expert testimony is going to eviscerate their case as they've built it.A more reasonable argument has been brought forward, that the artists didn't agree to let the AI get trained on their artwork, but that brings with it an entire -separate- legal issue: What artist specifically allows their art to train any other artist? The number of art classes based on teaching the styles of DaVinci, Van Gogh, and even Rothko that exist teach and train based on people's pre-existing art. Entire classes are built around mimicing specific -paintings- to convey the style.Heck, the number of young artists who learn to draw by pausing Anime to copy the style of Akira Torayama or other artists is enormous. Would they suddenly also have a case to sue the kids and teens? Or does AI get a special carve-out because of the intention of a programmer compared to the AI lacking intention. And what are the repercussions of teaching any AI anything if that carveout can be expanded to cover other topics.There's a lot more to it than appears on the surface.EDITJust went back to copyright alliance for the first time since early March:The Class Action Lawsuit -did- update their arguments to include the "We didn't agree" option. But they still hold to the "They composited our art and stole our profits" line. The former could reasonably result in punitive damages. The latter is gonna get torn apart barring an incredibly sympathetic judge who refuses expert testimony... in which case compensatory -and- punitive damages could result.But I doubt it.</blockquote>

Verification