Comment on When "AI" content becomes indistinguishable from human-made content, is there, philosophically speaking, any meaningful differences between the two?

• BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Because it mean the product you are getting is just someone else’s stolen work. Courts have said lots of things are legal that are unethical. When you ask an AI to make art it just is stealing that from other people’s art

  source

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No, as I said courts have been ruling the opposite. The act of training an AI is fair use. There have been cases where other acts of copyright violation may have occurred before getting to that step (for example, the download of pirated ebooks by Meta has been alleged and is going to trial) but the training itself is not a copyright violation.

    You can argue about ethics separately but if you're going to invoke copyright then that's a question of law, not ethics.

    source

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s a question of ethics because why would I pay money for what I consider stolen property?

      Courts ruling one way doesn’t make something ethical.

      Personally I would never knowingly pay someone money to ask an AI that was trained on stolen data to generate a picture that they then print off. More so I would judge anyone that did pay more than the cost of printing it on a paper. It’s not art to ask a computer to use stolen art to make a prompt

      source