If you use that approach there is no way left to claim that current AI models aren’t a huge copyright infringement on the data they were trained on. Because the biggest argument for why AI is supposedly not copyright infringing it’s training data, is because it’s generated images aren’t direct copies of the works if was trained upon.

But if you start arguing the idea behind a image or the vision is somehow copyrightable than all AI models are illegal. Since they definitely work by using the ideas and visions of artists.

It is not the exact same.thing though. Unless you want to claim that you have figured out how human creativity works?

As an artist you do not look at how 300 other artists have drawn a banana, you look at a banana and try to understand how you can use different techniques to capture the form, texture, etc. of a banana.

An AI calculates from hundreds of images the probability of lines and colours being arranged in a certain way and still being interpreted as a banana. It never sees a banana or understands what it is.

Tell me, where do you see a similarity in these two processes.

I don’t see why it is complicated. It should not be copyrightable because ideas aren’t copyrightable.

Otherwise you definitely have to start fresh with AI and build new ones which somehow aren’t trained on the pictures produced by artists.

Because if you copyright the idea behind an image, than definitely all AI produced images are infringing on the copyright of the art they used for training.

My boyfriend is completely technically illiterate haha. But he’s such a good boy otherwise

Stock photo “ecologist”

Perhaps it’s an effort to save companies that sell printer cartridges

I am also interested if anyone can tell me the exact time in our history when JavaScript turned from “Don’t you ever use that anywhere on your websites!” into “It’s basically every website”.

Then I guess you are for forced organ donations as well.

It is still forced childbirth, obviously, because what else are you suggesting? You think after a certain point in pregnancy a woman should have to birth the child so others can adopt it. After a certain point you think the woman loses the right to chose for her own and now society has the right to dictate that she has to continue being pregnant and birth the child. I think it is important to fully realize that this is the consequence of your reasoning.

But why is that a choice society makes for her body? I have asked that elsewhere but never get an answer from people who feel women should be forced to childbirth at a certain point: do you think people should be forced to donate organs?

Actually there is no debate. It’s called a fetus until it is born. It doesn’t suddenly turn into a person with superior rights because some other person suddenly decides that now the woman lost the rights to her own body.

So in this case, because you don’t like the person, you deem to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth a rightful punishment or what exactly is your reasoning?

Pregnancy can never be 100 % prevented. Unless you sterilise someone. And you do not know the reasons for why this girl didn’t go through abortion earlier.

You would want to force a 17 year old (or any person) to go through pregnancy and childbirth because you personally feel that’s the right thing to do? What about her rights? Does she lose them by getting impregnated? Because that’s what you are wanting to enforce.

It’s disgusting to wish on women that they should lose the rights to their own bodies that easily.

It is her body not yours. Just because a woman carries a foetus she doesn’t suddenly lose rights towards her own body.

Do you think people should be forced to donate organs?

Yes it is. It is called and considered a fetus up until birth.

The rights of the already birthed person (you know, the one who’s body you are trying to police) should have considerably more weight than the rights of an unborn fetus.