zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
I've been finding that the strangest part of discussions around art AI among technical people is the complete lack of identification or empathy: it seems to me that most computer programmers should be just as afraid as artists, in the face of technology like this!!! I am a failed artist (read, I studied painting in school and tried to make a go at being a commercial artist in animation and couldn't make the cut), and so I decided to do something easier and became a computer programmer, working for FAANG and other large companies and making absurd (to me!!) amounts of cash. In my humble estimation, making art is vastly more difficult than the huge majority of computer programming that is done. Art AI is terrifying if you want to make art for a living- and, if AI is able to do these astonishingly difficult things, why shouldn't it, with some finagling, also be able to do the dumb, simple things most programmers do for their jobs?

The lack of empathy is incredibly depressing...

>>meebob+kc
I think the correct way to get empathy is to use an equivalent that technical people understand, like Copilot:

* Can a Copilot-like generator be trained with the GPL code of RMS? What is the license of the output?

* Can a Copilot-like generator be trained with the leaked source code of MS Windows? What is the license of the output?

>>gus_ma+Ue
If a human learns to program by reading GPL code, what is the license of future code they write?

>>imgabe+Vf
Humans have rights, machines don't. Copyright is a system for protecting human intellectual property rights. You can't copyright things created by a monkey[1] for example. Thus it's not a contradiction to say that an action performed by a human is "transformative" while the same action performed by a machine is not.

But that is giving AI too much credit. As advanced as modern AI models are, they are not AGIs comparable to human cognition. I don't get the impulse to elevate/equate the output of trained AI models to that of human beings.

[1] https://thecopyrightdetective.com/animal-copyrights/

>>Alexan+pt
The AI did not create anything. It responded to a prompt given by a human to generate an output. Just like photoshop responds to someone moving the mouse and clicking or a paintbrush responds to being dragged across a canvas.

So any transformativity of the action should be attributed to the human and the same copyright laws would apply.

>>imgabe+ew
But under this model, the comparisons to human learning don't apply either. What matters is whether the output is transformative - so it's fair to compare the outputs of AI systems to one of the many inputs and say "these are too similar, therefore infringement occurred". It doesn't matter what kind of mixing happened between inputs and outputs, just like it doesn't matter how many Photoshop filters I apply to an image if the result resembles what I started with "too much".

>>Alexan+Jl1
Sure, just like a human can manually draw something that infringes copyright, they can use the AI to draw something that infringes copyright. It's the human infringing the copyright, not the AI.

But the fact that the human looked at a bunch of Mickey Mouse pictures and gained the ability to draw Mickey Mouse does not infringe copyright because that's just potential inside their brain.

I don't think the potential inside a learning model should infringe copyright either. It's a matter of how it's used.