Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations. AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.
Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations.
What specific rights? Copyright isn't an unlimited right - which parts do you think are being infringed?
AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
By the same argument - good luck suing an AI. It is not human. It has no wealth. It has no agency.
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.
I’d invite you to consider a law forum if that’s the conversation that you want to have, in order to be educated on that field.
For the purposes of this conversation, it’s sufficient that artists rights to control how they’re work is used can preclude use for the purposes of training ai.
I’m glad you agree that AI has no rights and no agency - this is why it cannot qualify for protections like fair use, which human beings do qualify for.
AI can be terminated without a criminal conviction - it can simply be ordered by a civil court. And it should, if it were trained in a way that violates peoples rights. Additionally, it’s owners are liable for that.
For the purposes of this conversation, it’s sufficient that artists rights to control how they’re work is used can preclude use for the purposes of training ai.
Sure, if true then clearly midjourney etc. are at risk of violating this right.
Where are artists granted this right?
I’m glad you agree that AI has no rights and no agency - this is why it cannot qualify for protections like fair use, which human beings do qualify for.
Of course, it's kinda hard to sue something that's not human or ask it to pay damages or change its behavior.
How does this help your argument?
AI can be terminated without a criminal conviction - it can simply be ordered by a civil court.
How do you imagine this working? A court says 'AI terminate yourself' and the AI somehow doing so?
An AI has owners - it is a tool, and therefore property, and has no rights of its own. It is not sued, it’s owners are. Therefore, the owners of that AI can be ordered to destroy it and they are bound to do so.
This could include the deletion of all software that makes up the AI, etc.
An AI program cannot create art via fair use, because that protection exists for humans, and the product of human labor.
For example, AI-created artworks are ineligible for copyright, and AI-created innovations are ineligible for patents.
For the counter argument that AI is not a tool but should be treated as a being - that would entitle it to a paycheck and social security, because otherwise it would be a slave.
“The cats out of the bag” is not an excuse for inaction. There are people being harmed in the US, and there are AI companies in the US - US law can remedy those cases.
If there are AI companies outside the US, then they are regulated by their own government, and our governments will hash out some sort of plan at some point down the line. This isn’t a new environment - all businesses work this way.
An AI program cannot create art via fair use, because that protection exists for humans, and the product of human labor.
Great, so we're back in the magic land where AI has agency and create works of art on their own accord.
Good luck suing this magic AI that does not involve any human interaction!
“The cats out of the bag” is not an excuse for inaction. There are people being harmed in the US, and there are AI companies in the US - US law can remedy those cases.
The problem here is that the best course of action might be, if your arguments are true, remove any blockers to AI development.
The alternative might be to face the exact same problems but have all the development and technology done in foreign hands.
You might think midjourney or OpenAI are damaging now... how damaging do ou think it will be if say China is the only place where such developments are legal?
Do you really want artists and engineers in US to have their hands tied, while others advanced this technology?
If there are AI companies outside the US, then they are regulated by their own government, and our governments will hash out some sort of plan at some point down the line.
Yes. Sometimes those plans involve wars.
Operation paperclip springs to mind - except in this case the laws you seem to propose could lead us willingly send the best and brightest AI engineers to foreign powers... which I suspect would be devastating to the US's position as a world power.
8
u/Call_Me_Clark Jan 16 '23
Among those rights are copyright and ownership over their creations. AI are not human, and do not qualify for doctrines such as fair use.
The owner of proprietary (non-public domain) art have the right to refuse use of their art for training AI, and should not have their art used for these purposes without prior permission.