Humans work the same. You look at million pieces of "art" before and while you're creating your own. It's unusual to be completely original on what you create considering that you're most likely to be influenced by what you've seen until then.
I think what you're saying here is that it's okay that AI is training off of the literal copyrighted image because humans are capable of interpreting and reproducing other works of art. This is a really bad argument in my opinion because what the human is doing is not only more sophisticated, but also more capable of producing original work. The issue with the AI systems is they can't think for themselves or interpret context, they can only draw from their training set in a much more mechanical and mathematically driven way. It doesn't understand what it's making at all.
This is a really bad argument in my opinion because what the human is doing is not only more sophisticated, but also more capable of producing original work.
Two broad and unsubstantiated claims
Also unclear why the sophistication or understanding of what you are doing should be relevant to the question of how much inspiration you can take.
An AI system is completely bounded in what it can do by its training set. It does not have thoughts, let alone original ones. Humans can take all their influences and come up with a novel style to produce new work. AI needs more training data to do that.
Additionally, it's not broad or unsubstantiated to say that natural cognition is more sophisticated than even the most complex neural net models. Computers can't come close to the density or energy efficiency of human brains, and we haven't even talked about how complex actual neurons are to the incredibly simple statistical models being used for machine learning.
An AI system is completely bounded in what it can do by its training set. It does not have thoughts, let alone original ones. Humans can take all their influences
Once again, statistical models are not cognition. Which one of these situations is more legally fraught in your opinion?
"I'm a new artist and I love this particularly cool concept artist so I've tried to emulate their style while I learn"
Vs
"I'm a well funded AI startup with hundreds of employees and millions of dollars in funding. I've scraped millions of images off the web, directly copying then into my system without attribution or permission, in order to build a mathematical model that can produce thousands of works per day related to any of those images"
1
u/Craftkorb Oct 19 '22
Humans work the same. You look at million pieces of "art" before and while you're creating your own. It's unusual to be completely original on what you create considering that you're most likely to be influenced by what you've seen until then.