zlacker

> Critically the question is, did the developers put reasonable guardrails in place to prevent it?

Why? If I steal a bunch of unique works of art and store them in my house for only me to see, am I still committing a crime?

>>cudgy+(OP)
violating copyright is not stealing - it's a government granted monopoly...

>>cudgy+(OP)
Yes, but policing affairs inside the home have always been impractical at the best of times.

Of course, OpenAI and most other "AI" aren't affairs "inside the home"; they are affairs publicly demonstrated far and wide.

>>danthe+y
Taking an original "one of one" piece from a museum without permission and hanging it up in your livingroom isn't exactly copyright infringement though, is it?

>>cudgy+(OP)
Yes... because you're stealing?

But if you simply copied the unique works and stored them, nobody would care. If you then tried to turn around and sell the copies, well, the artist is probably dead anyway and the art is probably public domain, but if not, then yeah it'd be copyright infringement.

If you only copied tiny parts of the art though, then fair use examinations in a court might come into play. It just depends on whether they decide to sue you, like NYT did in this case, while millions of others did not (or just didn't have the resources to).

>>danthe+y
This is a little ridiculous. There are flaws with copyright law but making money from creative work would be even less viable than it is now if there were no disincentives at all to blatant plagiarism and repackaging right after initial creation.

>>Dalewy+A
Not only not inside the home but also charging money for it.

>>solard+N2
Yes and OpenAI sells its copies as a subscription, so that’s at least copyright infringement if not theft.

>>asylte+2y
They're not copies, no matter how much you want them to be.

>>anigbr+YD
They are copied. If I can say something like “make a picture of xyz in the style of Greg rutkowski” and it does so, then it’s a copy. It’s not analogous to a human because a human cannot reproduce things like a machine can. And if someone did copy someone artwork and try to sell it, then yes that would be theft. The logic doesn’t change just because it’s a machine doing it.

>>asylte+np1
Repeating what you want to be true doesn't make it so, in either technology or law.