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?
The argument relies a lot on an analogy to photographers, which misunderstands the nature of photography. A photographer does not give their camera prompts and then evaluate the output.
A better analogy would be giving your camera to a passerby and asking them to take your photo, with prompts about what you want in the background, lighting, etc. No matter how detailed your instructions, you won’t have a copyright on the photo.
But it does matter whether your input is a brush or a prompt.
If you physically paint something with a paintbrush, you have a copyright over your work.
If someone asks you to physically paint something by describing what they want, you still have copyright over the work. No matter how picky they are, no matter how many times they review your progress and tell you to start over. Their prompts do not allow them to claim copyright, because prompts in general are not sufficient to claim copyright.
A prompt is more than a command. It is a command with an immediate output that is not fully predictable by the prompt-giver.
So for example the copyright office might ask, “This image includes a person whose left eye is a circle with radius 2.14 cm. Why is it 2.14 cm?”
Traditional artist: because I chose to move the paintbrush (or mouse) 2.14 cm. The paintbrush (mouse) can only go where I move it.
Photographer: because I chose to stand 3 meters from the subject and use an 85mm lens on my camera. The magnification (size) of the eye depends only on those factors.
AI-assisted artist: because I asked for larger eyes. I did not specify precisely 2.14 cm, but I approved of it.
In your example, if you can fully predict the output of the vacuum by your voice command, then it is no different than using a paintbrush or mouse.
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).
The copyright office has been pretty clear that if an artist is significantly involved in creating an image but then adjusts it with AI, or vice versa, then the work is still eligible for copyright.
In all of the cases where copyright was denied, the artist made no significant changes to AI output and/or provided the AI with nothing more than a prompt.
Photographers give commands to their camera just as a traditional artist gives commands in Photoshop. The results in both cases are completely predictable. This is where they diverge from AI-generated art.
So if someone asks you to paint something and gives you detailed instructions about what they want to see in your painting, do you think they should have copyright over your work?
The output is still fully predictable by the artist.
The dice didn’t make the eyes, after all. They just showed 21, now it’s your job to actually make 21mm eyes. In doing so, you could mess up and/or intentionally make 22mm eyes. If someone asks, “Why are these eyes 21mm?”, you can answer “I decided to do what the dice asked”.
The dice are more like a client who asks you to draw a portrait with 21mm eyes. In other words, they are giving you a prompt. Nobody but you knows if they will get what they asked for.
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.
There are two separate issues here. First, can you copyright art that is completely AI-generated? The answer is no. So openAI cannot claim a copyright for its output, no matter how it was trained.
The other issue is if openAI violated a copyright. It’s true that if you write a book in the style of another author, then you aren’t violating copyright. And the same is true of openAI.
But that’s not really what the openAI lawsuit alleges. The issue is not what it produces today, but how it was originally trained. The authors point out that in the process of training openAI, the developers illegally download their works. You can’t illegally download copyrighted material, period. It doesn’t matter what you do with it afterwards. And AI developers don’t get a free pass.
Illegally downloading copyrighted books for pleasure reading is illegal. Illegally downloading copyrighted books for training an AI is equally illegal.
An administrator from a tiny Texas city is accused of orchestrating a plot to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars — while allegedly leading a campaign of abuse to force out two gay dads who moved to town and opened a taco joint....
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.
The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft. And even more training for commercial pilots (i.e. paying passengers).
Nothing in this article suggests that pilots of this vehicle would have less training than pilots of other aircraft.
I worry a lot more about drunk drivers than drunk pilots.
I don’t see why this should be of more concern than someone designing an inexpensive new private fixed wing aircraft or small helo. Which happens all the time.
Also, flying is far less dangerous than pretty much any other form of travel. Would you also be concerned about a city that encouraged bicycles to “buzz around” the streets? Bicycle crashes are less dramatic than aircraft crashes, but they end up killing far more people.
Major airlines have two pilots and expensive avionics. But “commercial aircraft” refers to all aircraft with paying passengers, including Cessnas with a single pilot that take a few passengers sightseeing. As I said, fatalities are extremely rare in any of these flights.
And all pilots are guided by air traffic control, from major airliners to solo private pilots. Air traffic control is meant to prevent mid-air collisions, an air traffic control system that ignored small aircraft would be pointless.
The risk increases with any aircraft, the size is irrelevant. You might as well complain whenever Boeing builds a new airplane. And they build hundreds each year.
Fortunately, ATC regulates the number of aircraft - of any size - that can safely fly in a particular section of airspace.
And yet you keep ignoring the fact that all forms of commercial aviation have an excellent safety record.
That means that if you add up annual US fatalities in the small 2-4 passenger planes that you are irrationally worried about, plus slightly larger planes of 4-10 passengers that you are irrationally worried about, plus charter planes of 5-50 passengers, plus regional carriers, plus major airliners, plus any other air passengers you can imagine …
… the grand total would be about ten deaths per year on average. All those different planes put together, still less dangerous than lightning.
And now you want me to believe that this excellent multi-decade safety record would magically be upended by building more aircraft, even though we are already building more aircraft - of all types - and have been for decades.
Small commercial aircraft have an excellent safety record relative to every other commercial form of transportation.
you continue to conflate all commercial aircraft with small aircraft
Do you really need to have it explained to you how private aircraft have nothing to do with this conversation? LMAO.
We are discussing small commercial aircraft here. And small commercial aircraft have an excellent safety record relative to every other form of commercial transportation.
to continue to insist that these tiny aircraft
It must be very convenient for you to ignore FAA safety testing for commercial aircraft.
adding a whole lot more of them to the skies
Another uninformed opinion. If the FAA thinks they are safe, then I believe they are safe.
I am certainly not valuing your opinion over theirs, since you are incapable of even distinguishing commercial aircraft from private aircraft.
any number of these vehicles would be safe
I trust the FAA to determine whether the skies are too congested, not you. They are guided by evidence, not reactionary pessimism.
No, you’re just giving your opinion. Actually, “fearmongering” is the right term for your posts.
You, like so many others, are afraid of new technology. But the FAA isn’t. And if the FAA isn’t, then neither am I. Because they are aviation experts, and you aren’t.
“The sky is falling” isn’t a very good argument, dude. Most people learn this in elementary school.
The FAA and I claim the same thing. Commercial aviation is safe. All commercial aircraft, of any size, are safer than any other commercial vehicle. The facts are on our side.
You are terrified that commercial aviation will be unsafe in the future. but you have no facts on your side. Merely speculation based on fear of the unknown. People have been afraid of things “crashing from the sky” since the birth of aviation. People were afraid of jets, they were afraid of transatlantic flights, they were afraid of autopilot systems.
Anything new can strike fear into the uneducated.
The FAA doesn’t think the future will be less safe, because they have educated themselves with the facts. And I trust the FAA. Their success speaks for itself.
You’re the one who has spouted lies over and over and confused them with the truth. Did you actually expect anyone to believe your fantasy that commercial aviation is dangerous?
I can’t get mad at children, or those of you who act like children. Nothing will change them but experience, and you’ve still got a long ways to go.
I’m sure you’ll sleep well, probably dreaming about how you single-handedly stopped advancements in aviation. Or maybe about how you bravely resisted dangerous new forms of vaccination. You folks are all the same.
Keep dreaming, meanwhile the rest of the world will move on without you.
F35s have transponders, just like every other aircraft that flies in the US. They are necessary to avoid mid-air collisions. When flying a stealth mission in enemy airspace, they can turn the transponders off.
Stealth aircraft spend a lot more time flying training missions over friendly territory than combat missions over enemy territory. They use transponders on training missions, such as this one, because they want to be easily visible to other military and civilian pilots.
“Fair use” has a specific meaning in copyright law. If something replaces the need for something else in the market, it’s almost certainly not fair use. Generative AI replaced the need to hire an original artist.
Copyright can be violated even if your output does not contain a copy.
For example, if I burn a copy of your Disney DVD, watch it, and then write a review, then I’ve violated copyright. The review doesn’t violate copyright, but the DVD I burned does. Even if I throw away my DVD after publishing my review.
All the major AIs were trained with images that were downloaded from the web. When you download something from the web, you do not have an unlimited license to do what you want with your download. You may have a right to view it, but not use it for commercial purposes such as AI training. And if you use that image for AI training without permission, then you’ve violated copyright. Even if you delete the image after you’re done training your AI.
The SCOTUS ruled that VHS could legally be used to time-shift TV broadcasts, ie record a program in order to personally watch later. If you have permission to watch a TV program, then watching it at a different time has no economic impact and is fair use. Making a copy of someone else’s DVD is still illegal. So is giving your VHS tape to someone else. They are not fair use.
It is illegal to download copyright protected works. That applies to the person who receives the download, even if lawsuits tend to target those who share the file.
It’s true the review itself doesn’t violate copyright, but my actions prior to the review (copying someone else’s DVD) did. It’s no different than sneaking into a movie theater in order to write the review. Focusing on the review misses the point
Any copyright protected work you gather from the Internet has a limited license. That license generally allows private non-commercial use, so most people are not in trouble.
There was actually a lawsuit by Facebook against a company that was using a web scraper to gather data about Facebook users to build advertising trackers. The judge noted that if the web scraper was downloading user photographs and text posts then it was very likely infringing IP (but not Facebook’s IP, because the rights still belonged to the users).
That’s almost certainly what his lawyers are going to do. But I think that it will be the appeals court that pisses off the MAGA idiots, and that the SCOTUS will not take the case.
Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)
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?
Auditor says several college majors indoctrinate students and should be defunded (abcnews.go.com)
2 Gay Dads Helped Uncover $767,000 Embezzlement Scheme in Texas Town Where 'Officials Called Them Homophobic Slurs' (themessenger.com)
An administrator from a tiny Texas city is accused of orchestrating a plot to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars — while allegedly leading a campaign of abuse to force out two gay dads who moved to town and opened a taco joint....
Elon Musk Suggests He Will Charge All X/Twitter Users a Fee to Be on the Platform (variety.com)
I’m not sure if this is technically Technology news, but I can remove this post if it’s in the wrong community...
Elon Musk’s Tweet Criticizing Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Sparks Outrage (www.kyivpost.com)
AP News: Hundreds of flying taxis to be made in Ohio, home of the Wright brothers and astronaut legends (apnews.com)
Lost my F-35 in my couch (feddit.de)
deleted_by_author
Terraforming Mars team defends AI use as Kickstarter hits $1.3 million (www.polygon.com)
Hunter Biden, the son of the president, is indicted on federal gun charges (www.nbcnews.com)
Creators of Slay the Spire will migrate their next game to a new engine if Unity doesn't completely revert their changes (nitter.net)
Picture taken from their Twitter