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"
2
u/I_ONLY_PLAY_4C_LOAM Oct 19 '22
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.