zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
The argument of the training inputs are "just like reading a book" seems like a fair statement IMO albeit antiquated these days. However, generating text, audio, or images in the specific style of an individual creator seems like a slippery slope that ultimately deserves some kind of renumeration.

I'm glad I'm not a lawyer or politician trying to sort this out. If AI gets commercially crippled, I really don't want to live in a world of black market training data.

>>simple+sl
“However, generating text, audio, or images in the specific style of an individual creator seems like a slippery slope that ultimately deserves some kind of renumeration.”

Human artists already do this, extensively. We handle it by making their output the part of the process which holds relevant copyright protections. I can sell Picasso inspired pieces all day long as long as I don’t sell them as “Picasso.”

If I faithfully reproduced “The Old Guitarist”[1] and attempted to sell it as the original, or even as a version to copy and sell prints, I’d be open to legal claims and action. Rightfully so.

I personally haven’t heard a convincing argument as to why ML training should be handled as if it’s the output of the process, rather than the input that it is. I’m open to be swayed and make adjustments to my worldview so I keep looking for counterpoints.

—— [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Guitarist