zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

>>supriy+c3
I believe Copilot was giving exact copies of large parts open source projects, without the license. Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works?

I feel like this is the main distinction.

>>TheMid+w4
These models produce a lot of “in the style of” content, which is different from an exact copy. Is that different enough? I guess that’s what this lawsuit is going to be about.

>>limite+95
Yeah what's considered a copy or not is a grey area. Here's a good example of that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34378300

But artists have been making "in the style of" works for probably millennia. Fan art is a common example.

I suppose the advent of software that makes it easy to make "in the style of" works will force us to get much more clear on what is and isn't a copy. How exciting.

However, I don't see how the software tool is directly at fault, just the person using it.