Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GodOfThunder101 t1_j67khzp wrote

Copy right issues. Probably would spark lots of lawsuits.

8

visarga t1_j68th6d wrote

Let me show how you can sidestep copyright.

> In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable.

Since AI generated content is public domain, then AI trained on AI generated content is free from any liabilities. This second generation AI cannot replicate any human original work because it never saw them in its training set.

By training on variations we can cleanly separate expression from idea. Copyright only covers expression, not the ideas themselves. But a variation in the same style will capture just the style and not the contents of the original.

So, second generation AI can learn from what is allowed to be learned (ideas) and avoid learning what is protected (expression).

2

Superschlenz t1_j6atd0c wrote

If the output from the first generation AI which becomes the input to the second generation AI is considered illegal, then the output from the second generation AI may be considered illegal as well.

1

visarga t1_j6c2fd0 wrote

The question is illegal in itself, for simply existing, or illegal to publish, but ok to train on since it has no copyright and does not closely resemble the originals? It could be a technical way to reduce exact copyright infringement.

2

Trumaex t1_j6a91ie wrote

Nah, doubt it. They did expect troubles (and got them) when scanning all those books, yet they did it anyway. Google can afford the best lawyers. It's something else. Maybe it's not that good, maybe it's publicity stunt, maybe they want to gauge the reaction. Maybe they don't want to be first, so all the anit-ai art hateful crowd goes after someone else first. etc. etc.

1

Superschlenz t1_j6atxcu wrote

>It's something else.

Yes, and it's called the passing of time. Google 2004 ≠ Google 2023.

1