If you use my copyrighted (public) code to train your brain, and then produce new functions that do new things, there is no problem.
Replace "brain" with "AI" and you get my position on this (and a lot of others' positions). It seems to be a lot easier to transform art than code.
That's the amazing part: the training dataset contains 5B images. Yet it distilled all of them in this mere 4Gb of data and can produce an infinite amount of content with those. It really feel like it learned how to draw, in the same sense a human learn and does not simply reproduce exact copy of what it already saw.
https://i0.wp.com/www.technollama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2...
Not really a copy. I'm sure you could cajole it into something very similar to the actual piece, but at that point it's more the model + the extensive prompt instead of the model itself.
For example, if you enter in something simple and high profile, what it returns looks pretty close to an existing work...
Try, for example, typing in "Banksy", "Brad Pitt" or "Starbucks".
So if you type in "Photo of a Coffee", "Impressionist painting of a fruit bowl" or "Blue canvas with one red line in the middle", how do you guarantee that the image you get back isn't actually a copy of someone's work?
Copyright exists to allow an artist time to reap the benefits of his labor. Without this time, they say, no rational person would invest his labor into making art. Dubious… but, whatever. The point is, if you remove the ‘labor’ from the mix, there’s no need for copyright.
If I can produce spectacular images with zero individual labor, there will be little reason for me to copy someone else’s work.
Can I interest you in some recently discovered DaVinci paintings? 10% off when you buy 2 or more.
That said, this is very very different from just copying at a conceptual level. This is going to end up being a an interesting legal question going forward. I'm curious to see how it turns out.