zlacker

I would argue if people are allowed to see your art for free, so should AI models.

>>residu+(OP)
people are allowed to take a walk in the park, so why cars or tanks or bulldozers are not?

>>people+H4
A bulldozer destroys the park and other people's ability to enjoy it -- active, destructive. Passively training a model on an artwork does not change the art in the slightest -- passive, non-destructive

Mind you, this is not talking about the usage rights of images generated from such a model, that's a completely different story and a legal one.

>>residu+(OP)
Bad argument. Being allowed to see art and being allowed to copy art are two different things. Being allowed to _copy_ is a reserved _right_, that's the root of the word copyright.

>>residu+67
> A bulldozer destroys the park and other people's ability to enjoy it

hear hear...

> Passively training a model on an artwork does not change the art in the slightest

copyright holders, I mean individual authors, people who actually produced the content being used, disagree.

They say AI is like a bulldozer destroying the park to them.

Which technically is true, it's a machine that someone (some interested party maybe?) is trying to disguise as a human, doing human stuff.

But it's not.

> passive, non-destructive

Passive, non-destructive, in this context means

- passive: people send the images to you, you don't go looking for them

- non-destructive: people authorized you, otherwise it's destructive of their rights.

>>dotanc+z8
Except they aren't copying it, but instead drawing inspiration from it. Which all humans have done forever.

>>concor+bb
This falls apart for 2 reasons. First, I don't think there's any technical definition of "inspiration" that applies to a deeply nested model of numerical weights. It's a machine. A hammer does not draw inspiration from nails that have been hammered in before. Second an AI is not a human under the law and there's no reason to think that an activity that would be considered "transformative" (e.g. learning then painting something similar) when done by a human would still be considered such if performed by an AI.

>>residu+(OP)
AI models are not people.

>>concor+bb
Following your logic: if AI is like humans why don't we tax its work?

>>mejuto+lr
If an AI ever gets paid for the work it does, I'm sure we will.

>>dotanc+z8
Bad argument. Copying art is not the crime, distributing the copied art is the crime. The Disney Gestapo can't send storm troopers to your house if your kid draws a perfect rendition of Mickey, but they can if your kid draws a bunch of perfect renditions and sells them online.