I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a matter of intelligence or sentience. The key question is whether the output of a prompt is fully predictable by the person who gave the prompt.

    The behavior of a paintbrush, mouse, camera, or robot arm is predictable. The output of a prompt is not (at least, not predictable by the person who gave the prompt).

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck A.I. art and fuck its copyright, so we’re clear where I’m coming down on things, but that argument alone would seem to discount alot of experimental stuff I’ve done where I won’t know how it’ll come out when I start but I keep it if it looks/sounds cool.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In most experimental work, the artist does make a direct contribution to some key elements of the work, for example framing or background. Which is all that’s necessary, you can still obtain copyright over something that is only partially under your control.

        If an artist gives up all direct control over an experimental work - such as the infamous monkey selfie - then I think they should no longer be able to copyright it.

      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if you can’t fully predict how a work will turn out, you still have control over your artistic processes in a way that the AI user is lacking. Even AI engineers often struggle to figure out what makes their models make the decisions that they do.

        But don’t forget that this is a question that exists in both philosophical and practical aspects. Philosophically “what is art” is a very nebulous thing to pin down. Practically, if AI users are allowed to copyright their output, they can use it for “plagiarism laundering” so to speak, by ripping off artists’ entire collections, training AI on it, and then selling works that are clearly based on those other artists’ even if non-identical. This is not something current copyright accounts for, but current copyright was made for a world with printing presses and photocopiers, not one with AI.

    • greenskye@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Predictable? How are people ‘predicting’ those abstract paintings made by popping balloons or spinning brushes around or randomly flinging paint around. Where does predictable come in? Humans have been incorporating random elements into art for ages.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        After you’ve spun enough brushes or popped enough balloons, the results will be fairly predictable. And some elements, for example the color of paint in the brushes/balloons, would be under full control.

        Even if the final result is not completely predictable, an artist only needs to establish that a significant part of it is a form of creative expression.