This is frankly what humans have always done, learning and taking inspiration from other artists. Now we have made a machine that can do the same thing.
In the case of exact reproductions, we have copyright and IP laws.
In the case of exact reproductions, we have copyright and IP laws.
These models are not learning or being inspired in the same sense humans are. The laws tgat apply to humans should not be applied to them.
I claim humans can be inspired.
I don't claim to know how human inspiration happens, or if neurons have anything to do with it. (They may, but I make no claim). Not being able to describe the process by which human inspiration happens doesn't invalidate either of my claims.
If there is a satisfactory non-bit based explanation to how computer algorithms achieve inspiration, I would accept that to. We have the advantage with computers, that their activity is conveniently summarized by their programs which are represented in bits, so expecting an explanation in that form I think is reasonable.
The defense if the claim of human inspiration is (1) we have that word for the concept (2) we have thousands of years of thought, philosophy and literature giving support and definition to the concept.