• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But not as complicated as actually doing the work yourself. That’s the point. If you don’t create the work, it can’t be copyrighted.

    Honestly I think this is a good compromise, and these companies are missing the point. Just use this technology to make more movies and TV shows. Stop milking the exact same movie for years.

    Something from decades ago, where the actors and directors are all dead, shouldn’t be copyrighted. I think that’s too long anyway. It lets a few actors get a ton of money and stifles others. People want new shit anyway.

    Why not just hire actors full time and make a new AI script every week? That’s essentially what TikTok is, some new dumb idea done over and over by different people.

    • @assassin_aragorn
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      AI has been great for dumb TikTok memes, but that’s where it should stay.

      Regarding prompts and just hitting enter, I actually did quite a bit of work in a previous job that was pretty much just that. I’d set up the inputs, finagle the simulation, and come up with results. There’s some value in hitting enter, but it’s not in the actual execution. It’s in developing the input and interpreting the results. The raw product itself isn’t valuable – someone who knew nothing about the program could be instructed on what to enter and what buttons to press, and they’d create the exact same product.

      I think what we’ll see is copyright for prompts and development, but not for the output it generates. Someone could make a living on selling AI prompts without ever executing any of them.

      I’m curious how this ruling is going to affect the discussion of AI being trained on copyright material.