zlacker

“We” decide on today’s issues, not on all future possibilities. The reason for that decision in the past was to allow many creators to create without being too held back by “private property” signs everywhere. The current situation allows AI to create but demotivates creators. Now it’s time to think what will we do when AI wouldn’t pick a new style and there are not enough creators anymore who can or want to do that, whether it is a near future problem or maybe not a problem at all, and what should we decide again.

Simply hiding in an obsolete technicality is sure a wrong way to handle it.

>>wruza+(OP)
By the time we're tired of the existing styles I suspect we'll have AGI and the entire question will be moot.

>>wruza+(OP)
Style is entirely subjective and impossible to define. Van Gogh had a style. Are we going to say that we would want a society where only Van Gogh is allowed to make Impressionist paintings? Who decides if your painting is similar enough to Van Gogh that it’s illegal? What if your style is simplistic. Are you going to need to compare your art to all published art to make sure a court couldn’t find it “too similar”? What if we make a painting with AI that is a mix of Picasso and Van Gogh? Style?

It’s a stupid concept. It would never work. Even the visualizations we see that are explicitly attempting to copy another artist’s style are often still clearly not exactly the same.

>>oneoff+j51
I don’t think style will be a subject here at all. Maybe we’ll settle on that AI user must take an exicit permission before training on someone’s content and humans must not.

>>wruza+vb1
I’ll use the models trained in China then

>>wruza+vb1
Sure, we can do that.

My argument is just, and has always been, that this is a novel right that is not covered by existing legislation.