In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point is that if the model doesn’t contain any recognisable parts of the original material it was trained on, how can it reproduce recognisable parts of the original material it was trained on?

      • ricecake@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s sorta the point of it.
        I can recreate the phrase “apple pie” in any number of styles and fonts using my hands and a writing tool. Would you say that I “contain” the phrase “apple pie”? Where is the letter ‘p’ in my brain?

        Specifically, the AI contains the relationship between sets of words, and sets of relationships between lines, contrasts and colors.
        From there, it knows how to take a set of words, and make an image that proportionally replicates those line pattern and color relationships.

        You can probably replicate the Getty images watermark close enough for it to be recognizable, but you don’t contain a copy of it in the sense that people typically mean.
        Likewise, because you can recognize the artist who produced a piece, you contain an awareness of that same relationship between color, contrast and line that the AI does. I could show you a Picasso you were unfamiliar with, and you’d likely know it was him based on the style.
        You’ve been “trained” on his works, so you have internalized many of the key markers of his style. That doesn’t mean you “contain” his works.

        • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because you can’t point to a specific part of your brain that contains the letter ‘p’ doesn’t mean it isn’t in there somewhere. If you didn’t contain the letter ‘p’, or Getty watermark, or Picasso’s work, you wouldn’t be able to recognise them when you saw them or tried to replicate them. The act of recognising something that is familiar is basically the brain comparing what the eye sees with what is stored in the memory. The brain stores it differently to an exact copy on a hard drive, but it does, nevertheless, contain everything that it remembers.

          • ricecake@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree that recognition implies you contain it. It’s much closer to a description than the actual thing, and a description isn’t the same as the thing. This is evidenced by you being able to look at a letter P in a font you’ve never seen before and recognize it without issue. If it was just comparison, you couldn’t do that.