6
How does this community feel about the legal treatment of AI art? (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/imageai@sh.itjust.works
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4658537

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Keep telling yourself that, it seems to be working.

You haven't said much of substance, you've just made your bias abundantly clear, so it's pointless for me to continue arguing when I already know where your bread is buttered.

I was only trying to explore this topic from an objective, intellectual standpoint, but you seem to feel as if I am challenging your livelihood, so I will recuse myself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not at all, I've laid out reasons for why:

    1. Your suppositions are incorrect, sorry to be the messenger, but my working understanding of my career definitely does outweight your "I think" in regard to what my peers do for a living.

    2. AI is not as viable as people want to believe it is (yet, at least) which happen to be the very same reasons behind the lack of copyright viability and why commercial teams are not using it. Because anyone working in the industry who has experienced these tools or put out any actual product is already laughing at how obvious it is. The courts are right, and the discussion is about how AI works and why it does not. Not "should it tho?"

    You on the other hand, opened with an attempt to shut down my working experience with suppositions because I contradicted you, belittlement and attempts to claim intellectual superiority (by hilariously being wrong on both counts) then when called out, you tried to swing everything to your interpretation of how someone must feel if they're telling you you're wrong and dumb for thinking that was an "intellectual exploration" of the topic at hand.

    I knew I was talking to a fool, but damn. This is impressive.

    There is no bias to have, AI as it exists is not a viable tool for commercial use, it rightfully does not meet the requirements to be copyrighted. Your apparent interest in denying that truth seems to be the root of this projection.

    My livelihood is not at risk. At worst I'll be tasked with laying out what my team will need to populate our own in-house AI in order for them to utilize it for low priority bulk assets. The chances it would be used for anything of importance are very low because it's just another route to a goal we can already achieve easily.

    So at worst, my job is even more secure and all I have to do is spend a week getting paid for adding yet another tool to my set. None of my teams livelihoods are at risk either because we all understand the parts AI and a prompt engineer will not know could or should be described. If they did, they'd understand that writing and editing prompts out is slower than just doing the work directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •