• @TwilightVulpine
    link
    English
    51 year ago

    No, our legal definitions simply haven’t been made with a consideration towards advances in technology. It is made for a world that has printing presses and photocopiers, not for one where people can and do selectively feed one artists’ works into AI without their permission to generate works that are non-identical but clearly intended to be equivalent to that artist’s work. There is no other way to call that but derivative.

    But while the overall result is more ambiguous as more works are used for training and the prompt doesn’t rely on one particular artist, it’s much in the same way that a large enough tragedy is a statistic. It’s fueled by massive amounts of copyright infringement. The humans who prepared these tools in this way didn’t have the right to do it as they did.

    That said, this insistence that the only way to be competitive with corporations using AIs is to use AI is questionable. You said your previous comment responded to me but it didn’t actually. Why is it that AI would make it or break ot for indie developers that can make do without the massive production teams and expensive tools that AAA studios have? Why is this what would drive them out when all the other advantages AAA studios have didn’t? I find it very unlikely that the personal craftsmanship in indie works will cease to be appealing.

    Besides, AI could be ethically trained by using works in the Public Domain and Creative Commons. So it’s not even like the only options are being complicit to ripping off artists or being cut off from this tool.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I think you’re replying to me in two different comments. Let’s try to consolidate this.

      • @TwilightVulpine
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        True. I just responded to the other one but if you want to continue, we can do it here.