• RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Both an AI and an art student are a complex web of weights that take inputs and returns an output. Agreed.

    But the inputs are vastly different. An art student has all the inputs of every moment leading up to the point of putting paint to canvas. Emotion, hunger, pain, and every moment that life has thrown at them. All of them lead to very different results. Every art piece affects the subsequent ones.

    The AI on the other hand is purely derivative. It’s only ever told about pre-existing art and a brief interpretation of it. It does not feel emotion. It does not worry about paying its bills or falling in love. It builds a map of weights once and that is that. Every input repeated however many times will yield exactly the same output.

    And yes, you have the artists who are professional plagiarists, making hand-painted Picasso imitations of someone’s chihuahua for $20 over the internet. But they’re not mass producing derivative work by the thousands.

    I fully agree with the shit-in, shit-out sentiment, and researchers should be free to train their models of whatever data they need.

    But monetising their models, that by definition are generating derivative works is another matter.

    • Hangglide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you know it is purely derivative? Are you saying an AI can’t write a sentence that has never been written before or are you saying that it can’t have an original thought? If it is writing a brand new sentence that is an amalgamation of many other writings how is that violating a copyright (or any differentthan a human doingit)? The copyright claims are absurd.