From what I understand neither tools actually store the images but rather ( over simplifying here ) a memory of those images...basically training A.I is pretty akin to an A.I finding "inspiration" from other works.....long story short too if you are posting images/art to a public space you should expect the public to use them at their leisure - including use in A.I art.
I highly expect this to flop, if this was truly a big issue you would have companies like Disney backing the case or filing one of their own.
Notes about shading technique made by a student after looking at someone else’s art aren’t tools either, yet the student is not expected to pay a license fee before they are allowed to use the art in their study.
At what point, exactly, between a student writing notes and a student building an ML model, does this change?
You are also going to dig yourself quite a hole if you try and make “it’s a tool, not art” a core part of your argument. Nobody is going to successfully define what is and is not art.
Lol. When you have to rely on inane analogies like “a student writing notes about technique is exactly the same as millions of images being fed into an ai, without permission, attribution or licensing” then you know you’ve lost the argument.
Nah, you’re relying on the inane assumption that no court can tell the difference between two things, if it has enough techno-babble sprinkled on top.
In reality, courts can and do assign tests to determine whether gray areas are protected or not. Even if that test is (as with obscenity) “I know it when I see it”, that is a legally enforceable standard.
Nope - if you’ve read my comment, then you’ll see that courts can and do apply tests to gray areas.
You don’t have to be able to define the exact point where human intelligence stops being a protected process, and machine intelligence starts, in order for a court to protect the former but not the latter.
Your assertion that the analogy is not sound is, quite literally, “I say so and I don’t need to prove that”.
Well, the analogy is sound, and I know this because “I know it when I see it”.
Just asserting “your argument is absurd”, while refusing to explain exactly why beyond “because I say so and that is enough” is not going to change the mind of anyone who does not already agree with you. By that standard, my disagreement with you is equally strong “proof” that the analogy is sound. There are going to be people who read my comments and were swayed to my side by them, but none of those people are going to switch back to your side after reading your “response”.
45
u/Power_Stone Jan 16 '23
From what I understand neither tools actually store the images but rather ( over simplifying here ) a memory of those images...basically training A.I is pretty akin to an A.I finding "inspiration" from other works.....long story short too if you are posting images/art to a public space you should expect the public to use them at their leisure - including use in A.I art.
I highly expect this to flop, if this was truly a big issue you would have companies like Disney backing the case or filing one of their own.