Oh, but it’s not a set of stored vectors, it’s a complex mathematical formula designed to output exactly those vectors. So that means it was just inspired by them instead of copying them, you know, philosophically. 
3 Likes
To be fair, we humans actually pay for the copyright materials we learn from.
(I don’t understand this mark up tagging)
1 Like
Even if we borrow it from the library… someone paid for a copy…
2 Likes
- AN A.I. IS A PERSON
- AN A.I. IS SORT OF A PERSON
- AN A.I. IS NOT A PERSON
0
voters
- An A.I. may or may not be a person if it ever exists, but these pre-trained models are even less A.I.s than Teslas are self-driving
People like to pretend this is like The Measure of a Man but the defendant isn’t even Searle’s Chinese room, it’s just a really big phrasebook.
7 Likes
Careful, if you vote wrongly in this poll Roko’s Basilisk is gonna get you! The favourite monster of stupid philosophers.
4 Likes
There is no “AI” yet that is remotely “I” by any definition.
4 Likes
thats literally what has been done in the earliest days (2017);
Broad detailed how he trained a Convolutional Autoencoder—a type of neural network—to recognize patterns of data in Blade Runner and then reconstruct it, scene by scene
2 Likes
At first glance the videos impress. But similar to the case of the AI kimono I wrote about last year, those who know Japan will find themselves quickly sliding into the uncanny valley of gibberish street signs and snow on the ground in cherry blossom season and all of the other assorted janky weirdness that comes with generative AI. That weirdness isn’t a bug, but a sort of feature. Because this isn’t really Japan dreamed by a machine — it’s Japan dreamed by a machine that’s been trained on foreign fantasies of Japan. (The baked-in Orientalism of American AI is one of many reasons domestic Japanese startups are scrambling to conjure up their own.)
8 Likes
No currently existing AI is a person. If you are asking whether there will be future AIs that are, or whether an AI could be one in principle, then my answer changes.
1 Like
It did make me chuckle. Then I focused on the movements of the… limbs… of the dozing owner, and felt rather queasy. 
3 Likes
Having now done a bit of actual reading rather than just spouting off what was at the top of my head, I agree with you.
The US Copyright Office has a very useful page on AI and copyright:
Obviously that’s only the Copyright Offices’ view and courts (and other jurisdictions) might well take a different view but having read some of the decisions posted there, the reasoning seems sound.
2 Likes
as you’re aware, that’s not what we’re talking about
2 Likes
But if we don’t treat interpolations of stolen art as new works now what will happen when Data wants to paint something three centuries from now
2 Likes
4 Likes
I wanted to reply to @chenille with a Data gif earlier, but I felt like it was too soong.
4 Likes
1 Like
there is something oddly meta with this one;
3 Likes
Tbf, the combination of snow and cherry blossoms was in the prompt, for some reason. But maybe they fudged that to fit the result?
1 Like
Algorithms are protected by copyright.
If the AI companies are so relaxed about ingesting copyright material to train their virtual machines, they might like to release their source code to the world so we could all make such wonderful inventions.
1 Like
