Technology

37801 readers

221 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

397

submitted 1 year ago by MJBrune@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So recently there has been a lot of debate on AI-generated art and its copyright. I've read a lot of comments recently that made me think of this video and I want to highly encourage everyone to watch it, maybe even watch it again if you already viewed it. Watch it specifically with the question "If an AI did it, would it change anything?"

Right now, AI-generated works aren't copyrightable. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/ This means you can not copyright the works produced by AI.

I work in games so this is more seemingly relevant to me than maybe it is to you. https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/03/valve-responds-to-claims-it-has-banned-ai-generated-games-from-steam/ Steam has outright said, earlier this month, that it will not publish games on its platform without understanding if the training data has been of images that aren't public domain.

So right now, common AI is producing works that are potentially copyright-infringing works and are unable to be copyrighted themselves.

So with this information, should copyright exist, and if not, how do you encourage artists and scientists to produce works if they no longer can make a living off of it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Deathcrow@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are tools that are being used to attempt to detect if a piece of work is AI-generated. If those tools say something was, it’s then on you to prove that you hand-created it.

They don't work. It's total bunk.

Even some artists are already having issues because things “look” AI-generated.

Exactly. See above. No one can (confidently) tell which is which. There's just educated guessing.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

K so you ignore the entire point in my post that the onus is on the creator to prove they have copyright and just point out it's hard to figure out which content to steal?

[–] snowbell@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The creator has a copyright if the relevant authorities have granted the copyright registration to them, that is all they need to prove.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Copyright isn't registered anymore, it's granted on creation in almost all jurisdictions that matter. It's not like there's documentation beyond the published work.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

They don’t work. It’s total bunk.

I'll go one further - they can never work. AI is trained using a system where an artist system generates art, and a gatekeeper system gives a confidence rating of how it looks human. The artist system goes through a training process until it can consistently fool the gatekeeper system. If there was a system that existed that could identify currently generated AI art, it would become the new gatekeeper system, and the artist system would only get better.