I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • @greenskye@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    You’re ascribing full human intelligence and sentience to the AI tool by your example which I think is inaccurate. If I build a robot arm to move the paintbrush for me, I would have copyright. If make a program to move the robot arm based on various inputs I would have copyright. Current (effective) AIs prompts are closer to a rudimentary scripting rather than a casual conversation.

    • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      It’s not a matter of intelligence or sentience. The key question is whether the output of a prompt is fully predictable by the person who gave the prompt.

      The behavior of a paintbrush, mouse, camera, or robot arm is predictable. The output of a prompt is not (at least, not predictable by the person who gave the prompt).

      • @greenskye@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Predictable? How are people ‘predicting’ those abstract paintings made by popping balloons or spinning brushes around or randomly flinging paint around. Where does predictable come in? Humans have been incorporating random elements into art for ages.

        • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          After you’ve spun enough brushes or popped enough balloons, the results will be fairly predictable. And some elements, for example the color of paint in the brushes/balloons, would be under full control.

          Even if the final result is not completely predictable, an artist only needs to establish that a significant part of it is a form of creative expression.