Fisk400

Owning something and owning the copyright to something isn't the same. You cant just make insane claims about something and expect me to engage with it. You are fully capable of taking photos that you own with the current copyright framework or photographers wouldnt be a profession and nothing would have pictures of anything.

I don't know where the "Hahaha, hahaha, no" comes in. Everything I said is supported by what you said. What part of my comment isn't true?

The people that is stealing art designed their algorithm to not contain proof that they stole art. If they are legally required to prove what training data they used in order to get a copyright then they will design the AI around that. That would immediately disqualify most of the current AIs because they have all been fed stolen art but I am sure they have the tech and capital to start over. And you know, Fuck em.

no no. You are not REQUIRED to break other peoples copyright in order to produce something with a camera. It is something you CAN do if you want to. AI literally cant function without a library of other peoples photos.

Someone else brought this up in this thread and it is the only circumstance should be able to copyright an AI artwork. If you own the copyright to every single piece of art in the training data. If I take 10.000 photos that are mine and feed them into an AI that produces more photos that are entirely based on my work then it should be copyrightable.

I would argue that the artist produces the copyright and transfers it to you. If the artist isn't human and cant produce copyrights then it cant sell it to you. A lot of argumentation here is that we should treat AI like we treat a human artist. That is an insane line to go down because that would make any AI work effectively slavery.

Artists. Famously part of the ruling class.

The argument was basically "that is how humans learn too". I accepted that analogy because it doesn't change my conclusion that AI can't be copyrighted. Had the discussion been about something else I wouldn't have accepted that argument.

Yeah, that shrug you did about how it would be nice if AI didn't steal art is part of the problem. Shrugging and saying joink doesn't work when you want to copyright stuff.

Human learns by assimilating other people work and working it into their own style, yes. That means that the AI is the human in this and the AI owns the artistic works. Since AI does not yet have the right to own copyrights, any works produced by that AI is not copyrightable.

That is if you accept that AI and humans learn art in the same way. I don't personally think that is analogous but it doesn't matter for this discussion.

Then absolutely go ahead. That isn't what the guy in the post did tough.

Because photographs don't require other people photographs to work. It just requires the labour of the engineers at Nikon and you payed them by buying the camera.

Use an AI algorithm with no training set and see how good your tool is.

Then why does all AI need to harvest the work of millions of artists in order to create one mediocre painting? Millions upon millions of hours of blood sweat and tears is hidden behind that algorithm. Thousands of people starting to draw when they are 5 and never stopping in order to get as good as they are.

All big AI services refuse to disclose the training set they use and those that we know anything about absolutely uses copyrighted material from artist that didn't consent to be part of the training set.

This is what fuels my contempt for AI. People that uses literal billions of dollars of stolen time and talent and then pretend that actually having ideas is the important bit.

Yes, that is the reasonable and intelligent interpretation of what I said.