It is no different than your awareness of a subject or style of work. I can draw a perfect Mickey Mouse. I learned that when I was ~6 years old. I’ve drawn hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand. Who do I need to sign my life over to in forfeit. None of the lawsuits about AI are remotely compelling IMO. They are all petty money grabs by people that can’t adjust to a new paradigm. The kind of knowledge an AI can generate presently is no different than what the average person with a passionate interest and familiarity is capable of doing. AI is the democratization of such passionate skill and interest. This path of nonsense leads to thought policing stupidity like we are living one thousand years ago. The AI was not created with the intent of replacing or forging a work of and kind. There was no intent. The intent is key here. If knowing of a style or work is wrong, all of human culture and society fall apart as sharing of copyrighted works in any way is now illegal. School text books - nope, the latest news on TV - nope, the last book you read - nope, the datasheet you read and need to report on in your next company meeting - you can’t share those copyrighted ideas with anyone else either. Sound extreme? It is where this logic leads. This is a dumb joke of a legal case.
It is no different than your awareness of a subject or style of work. I can draw a perfect Mickey Mouse. I learned that when I was ~6 years old. I’ve drawn hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand. Who do I need to sign my life over to in forfeit. None of the lawsuits about AI are remotely compelling IMO. They are all petty money grabs by people that can’t adjust to a new paradigm. The kind of knowledge an AI can generate presently is no different than what the average person with a passionate interest and familiarity is capable of doing. AI is the democratization of such passionate skill and interest. This path of nonsense leads to thought policing stupidity like we are living one thousand years ago. The AI was not created with the intent of replacing or forging a work of and kind. There was no intent. The intent is key here. If knowing of a style or work is wrong, all of human culture and society fall apart as sharing of copyrighted works in any way is now illegal. School text books - nope, the latest news on TV - nope, the last book you read - nope, the datasheet you read and need to report on in your next company meeting - you can’t share those copyrighted ideas with anyone else either. Sound extreme? It is where this logic leads. This is a dumb joke of a legal case.