zlacker

That the process is automated. That is one of the important tests of originality, that something is not created in a mechanical fashion.

>>jacque+(OP)
> that something is not created in a mechanical fashion.

I wonder if the nerds have shot themselves in the foot here with terminology? I suspect the nerd’s lawyers would have been much happier if the entire field was named “automated mechanical creativity” instead of “artificial intelligence”. It’d be kinda amusing to see the whole field of study lose in court because of their own persistent claims that what they’re doing is not just “creating in a mechanical fashion” but creating “intelligence” which can therefore be held to account for copyright infringement. Shades of Al Capone getting busted for taxes…

>>jacque+(OP)
I submit that human artists are, at the most fundamental level, no less "mechanical". They're just more complex.

Also, should a human artist creating a pastiche count as copyright infringement as well?

>>bigiai+K2
Good point, I had not thought of that, but terminology really matters with stuff like this and you may well be right.