AIs have no feelings or needs. We don’t have to worry about causing direct harm to them and about protecting their rights. Forbidding a person from reading a book just in case they copy elements from it is obviously problematic, but restricting AI’s access to copyrighted work is not directly harmful in the same way.
This is probably the best argument I’ve heard around AI regulation. Thank you.
The article is quite good, too, especially around drawing the distinction between small scale use and large commercial use. One person visiting a gallery, then going home and painting something similar, is different to a company sending lots of people to the gallery with the express intention of getting them to churn out ‘derivative works’ for profit.
So based on the above thoughts, do you feel like we hold AI generation to the same standard as we do human creators?
To answer this more directly, I think personally I did hold AI generation to the same standard as a human creator, and now I’m rethinking whether that is appropriate.
This is probably the best argument I’ve heard around AI regulation. Thank you.
The article is quite good, too, especially around drawing the distinction between small scale use and large commercial use. One person visiting a gallery, then going home and painting something similar, is different to a company sending lots of people to the gallery with the express intention of getting them to churn out ‘derivative works’ for profit.
To answer this more directly, I think personally I did hold AI generation to the same standard as a human creator, and now I’m rethinking whether that is appropriate.