Not clear that being able to sample from a distribution == stealing.

Given that "AI" training needs millions of books, papers and web pages, it is a derivative work of all those books. Humans cannot even read a fraction of that and still surpass "AI" in any creative and generative domain.

"AI" is a smart, camouflaged photocopier.

▲

hyperbovine 2 days ago | parent [-]

Photocopiers are legal. And every piece of art that has ever been produced is derivative.

	▲	zwnow 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Photocopying books for example is in fact not legal. Same goes for redistribution of art u stole.

▲

zwnow 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I dont care how you phrase it. Its no secret that art was stolen from artists. Image generation is thievery.

▲

namdnay 3 days ago | parent [-]

Is it the same if it’s a human doing the learning? If I spend my youth looking at art, I’d any work I then do “theft”?

▲

michaelt 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

When it comes to fan art of Disney characters, the legal position is "Disney could sue you for that, but chooses not to as suing fans would be bad PR, don't do anything commercial with it though or they'll sue you for sure"

So - yes, as I understand things it can indeed be illegal even if a human does the learning.

	▲	ndriscoll 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If we're discussing ethics, copyright law is basically irrelevant. Copying the art from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs would get you sued, but no sane person thinks it's unethical. Everyone involved in making it has almost certainly been dead for a while now. It's ethically no different from copying the original story like Disney did.

▲

zwnow 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If you copy an artists style with extreme precision without their consent, yes.

▲

namdnay 3 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t think that’s what we were talking about here - it was using AI to replace graphic designers at startups

	▲	zwnow 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which is an issue. I dont think you understand the whole point.