Hmm_would_bang t1_j6i10j8 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 2:03 PM

Reply to comment by poo2thegeek in Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI ask court to throw out AI copyright lawsuit by Tooskee

Humans get inspired by their own perception and imperfect memories of other artists and experiences in their life, AI models literally take the art and add it to their model.

Regardless, you seem to be proposing we treat AI models as if they are human beings and not products. We aren’t going to do that. It’s a nice philosophical game maybe, but if you just look at the facts of the matter you’re dealing with a case of a company taking unlicensed artwork and adding it into their product.

poo2thegeek t1_j6i5xxj wrote on January 30, 2023 at 2:41 PM

AI models take the art, and add it to their training inputs.

It doesn't have perfect memory of the inputs - this can be demonstrated by the fact that model sizes are significantly smaller than the size of data used to train them. Similarly, 'own perception' is an interesting idea. What does it actually mean? I'd argue than in an ML model, utilising some random input when training, to allow for different outputs for the same input (e.g, how chat GPT can reply differently even if you ask it the exact same thing on two different occasions).

I'm not saying we should treat AI models as if they're human beings - I don't think an AI model should be able to hold a copyright for example, but the company thats trained that model should be able to.

Similarly, if the AI model were to output something VERY similar to some existing work, then I think that the company that owns said AI model should be taken to court.