zlacker

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.

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

>>concor+C2
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.

>>concor+C2
Following your logic: if AI is like humans why don't we tax its work?

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

>>dotanc+(OP)
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.