undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmjhay3y ago0 comments

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. I really don't see how it is fundamentally different. Most of Harry Potter is derivative of previous fantasy work itself. Nothing is made in a vacuum.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool

0 comments

quadcore3y ago

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time.

The flaw in this argument is the word "artist". If you remove all the pictures from the data source, the AI isnt capable of generating anything. Because it's not an artist.

Timon33y ago

Can a human "generate anything" beyond what essentially equates to random noise if they have never had any sensory input? Comparing a "trained" human brain with a "newborn" model seems strange if we actually want to delineate between what is and isn't art.

ShrimpHawk3y ago

Ignoring the straw man argument here yes actually there are plenty of examples of individuals with no outside influence of art styles or references creating artworks. It's called outside art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

1 more reply

CrimsonRain3y ago

So if you were born blind, you can draw pictures?

quadcore3y ago

I can assure you I absolutely could. Myself to start with - and possibly better than you could :)

Only a bodyless, artificial brain cant draw anything, blind.

1 more reply

sandworm1013y ago

But Rowling knew enough to pull from prior public domain works, not other recent authors. Wizard schools are public domain. An AI author would have to know which they are allowed to use, which they can use under fair use, and which they must ask to use. Humans can do that. I am doing that right now as I use the "Harry Potter" trademark here while posting to HN without the owner's permission. AI systems scraping the internet cannot understand that needed nuance.

slyall3y ago

Not everything JK pulled from is out of copyright. But generally Authors are allowed to reuse all sorts of things. Compare say Battle Royale to the Hunger Games. Writing a story about Kids fighting to the death doesn't give you a monopoly on that storyline.

See this link, lots of recent works in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_an...

mjhayOP3y ago

Generally speaking though, any work created by such models does not copy any original work closely at all. Of course there could be slip-ups, but the same could be said of human generated works, which violate fair use on a regular basis.

rhino3693y ago

And copyright law deals with the difference between inspiration and copying. To vastly oversimply it, it depends how close the original is to alleged copy.

No reason you can't apply that framework to AI.

Where AI might get into more trouble is that you might be able show literal copying in a way that it's impossible to do in a person mind. Like saving chunks of a work into its model.

sfifs3y ago

Yes and when the derived things are very similar to the original and people feel wronged, they sue and judgements come from the court.

Now if you are the company selling this product, how many people are feeling wronged and will sue - that's the class action part?

If you use the product to generate an image that is very similar to someone's art and they feel wronged and sue, would you still use it commercially?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

quadcore3y ago

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time.

The flaw in this argument is the word "artist". If you remove all the pictures from the data source, the AI isnt capable of generating anything. Because it's not an artist.

Timon33y ago

ShrimpHawk3y ago

1 more reply

CrimsonRain3y ago

So if you were born blind, you can draw pictures?

quadcore3y ago

I can assure you I absolutely could. Myself to start with - and possibly better than you could :)

Only a bodyless, artificial brain cant draw anything, blind.

1 more reply

sandworm1013y ago

slyall3y ago

See this link, lots of recent works in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_an...

mjhayOP3y ago

rhino3693y ago

And copyright law deals with the difference between inspiration and copying. To vastly oversimply it, it depends how close the original is to alleged copy.

No reason you can't apply that framework to AI.

Where AI might get into more trouble is that you might be able show literal copying in a way that it's impossible to do in a person mind. Like saving chunks of a work into its model.

sfifs3y ago

Yes and when the derived things are very similar to the original and people feel wronged, they sue and judgements come from the court.

Now if you are the company selling this product, how many people are feeling wronged and will sue - that's the class action part?

If you use the product to generate an image that is very similar to someone's art and they feel wronged and sue, would you still use it commercially?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse