cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/46578520

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/prompt-3

Alt textBack when I was in art school, we believed in this with all our hearts.

Bonus panelBonus panel

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Remember, AI cannot hold a copyright. That AI art you created? No you didn't, AI did and it's basically public domain.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Well, its "skill" was built on public domain or via piracy, so its result should be public domain too.

    Hell, my interpretation of the "derivative works" clause of GPL stipulates that all llm and genai products should also be gpl.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Hell, my interpretation of the “derivative works” clause of GPL stipulates that all llm and genai products should also be gpl.

    ...an interpretation broad enough to cover that would also mean that anyone who has ever seen GPL code before would only ever be able to write GPL code ever again. The idea of which I imagine would give Richard Stallman an erection you could see from space,

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    That's close to the actual intention. Most MIT rewrites of GPL projects don't accept contributions from people familiar with the original codebase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Think more extreme than that, as in "if you've ever seen any GPL code whatsoever, it has in some small way impacted your understanding of code and now all code you write forevermore must be GPL" rather than just the codebase of the thing you are re-implementing because that's the kind of breadth you'd have to apply to the "derivative works" clause in GPL to argue all gen AI code must be GPL because the training data contains some GPL code.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    I'm still convinced that being unable to copyright its output was always part of idea of laundering the stolen data fed in. This way it effectively self sabotages the copyrights of every company and individual using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    So if I could convince a model to do a frame-by-frame recreation of a specific movie, maybe change a detail here or there, then I could distribute that movie without violating copyright?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I would suspect it would end in a similar manner to reverse engineering code, if you get a description of the whole film without specific products or actors, then recreate from that, then yes. But if you directly compare the scenes and make corrections to the output to make them closer, then no.

    But you'll have to do it and get sued anyway so the courts can rule on it.

  • source
  • parent