• ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, absolutely. They want AI to be people such that copyright applies and such that they can claim the AI was inspired just like a human artist is by the art they’re exposed to.

    We need a license model such that AI is only allowed to be trained on content were the license explicitly permits it and that no mention is equal to it being disallowed.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need a license model such that AI is only allowed to be trained on content were the license explicitly permits it and that no mention is equal to it being disallowed.

      That is the default model behind copyright, which basically says that the only things people can use your copyrighted work for without a license are those which are determined to be “fair use”.

      I don’t see any way in which today’s AI ought to be considered fair use of other people’s writings, artwork, etc.

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

        The concepts contained within a copyrighted work are not themselves copyrighted. It’s impossible to copyright an idea. Fair use doesn’t even enter into it, you can read a copyrighted work and learn something from it and later use that learning with no restrictions whatsoever.