They will at some point have to arrive to the obvious position that we are as if obliged to have been acquainted to the largest amount of available best culture in order to provide the most mature output.
And similarly for whatever aims to be an "intelligence" - still obliged to have consumed the best available cultural production.
bigyabai•8mo ago
> And similarly for whatever aims to be an "intelligence".
Let's not get too hasty here, a fair use ruling won't abolish copyright.
mdp2021•8mo ago
There is no copyright involved in having learnt from Pinter, Simon, Picasso, Bansky, Bach, Berry, Fukuyama, Gombrich etc. and producing your own thing. Again: you are supposed to having been exposed to their work.
The "shallow processing" nature of the current NNs is polluting the debate. (I would paste here e.g. the words of Gary Marcus, when complaining about his books having been processed by "things known to spew output too similar to their input".)
bigyabai•8mo ago
Now try doing that with Walt Disney and see how much they like you "learning" from their famous cartoon mouse. AI isn't a catchall defense, and there are reputable trademarks that can (and rationally, should) conflict with commercializing other people's intellectual property.
I don't personally oppose the complete abolition of copyright. But I will repeat myself; this is not that. AI will still butt up against IP laws that are salient and expressly related to training on copywritten material.
mdp2021•8mo ago
> how much they like
Many have been inspired by that work. It is how it works: people exposed to culture get inspired by it. There is no "preference" against it, there is no «like» - it is absurd.
> commercializing
Eh?! And where would that happen? You seem to have placed a large amount of assumption in your post.
> AI will still butt up against IP laws that are salient and expressly related to training on copywritten material
We all train on copywritten material! Why should an artificial implementation of intelligence be different? ?! It is the point of the original post! Intelligences are supposed to have been exposed to the largest amount the best cultural material. The perspective bent that comes with the current technologies is parenthetic, provisional, and damaging when taken myopically - they are not similar to the sought Intelligence, which uses different kinds of learning.
mdp2021•8mo ago
And similarly for whatever aims to be an "intelligence" - still obliged to have consumed the best available cultural production.
bigyabai•8mo ago
Let's not get too hasty here, a fair use ruling won't abolish copyright.
mdp2021•8mo ago
The "shallow processing" nature of the current NNs is polluting the debate. (I would paste here e.g. the words of Gary Marcus, when complaining about his books having been processed by "things known to spew output too similar to their input".)
bigyabai•8mo ago
I don't personally oppose the complete abolition of copyright. But I will repeat myself; this is not that. AI will still butt up against IP laws that are salient and expressly related to training on copywritten material.
mdp2021•8mo ago
Many have been inspired by that work. It is how it works: people exposed to culture get inspired by it. There is no "preference" against it, there is no «like» - it is absurd.
> commercializing
Eh?! And where would that happen? You seem to have placed a large amount of assumption in your post.
> AI will still butt up against IP laws that are salient and expressly related to training on copywritten material
We all train on copywritten material! Why should an artificial implementation of intelligence be different? ?! It is the point of the original post! Intelligences are supposed to have been exposed to the largest amount the best cultural material. The perspective bent that comes with the current technologies is parenthetic, provisional, and damaging when taken myopically - they are not similar to the sought Intelligence, which uses different kinds of learning.