Just being “a bunch of numbers” doesn’t stop it from being a work, it doesn’t stop it from being a derivative work
I suggest reading my entire comment.
A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things – in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.
It’s only a work if your brain is a work. We agree that in a digitized picture, those numbers represent the picture itself and thus constitute a work (which you would have known if you read beyond the first sentence of my comment). The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.
I did, buddy. You’re just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be “just data”. Again, we’re not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.
It’s only a work if your brain is a work. (…) The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.
Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that’s a hot take – it’s not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.
You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn’t been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?
Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It’s a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn’t a person, it isn’t an intelligence, it’s essentially part of a program, and it’s the output of labour performed by someone.
The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can’t be a work. That’s not… coherent. You’ve jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is “human brain has neurons”. Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can’t copyright it? I can’t patent it?
I suggest reading my entire comment.
It’s only a work if your brain is a work. We agree that in a digitized picture, those numbers represent the picture itself and thus constitute a work (which you would have known if you read beyond the first sentence of my comment). The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.
I did, buddy. You’re just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be “just data”. Again, we’re not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.
Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that’s a hot take – it’s not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.
You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn’t been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?
Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It’s a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn’t a person, it isn’t an intelligence, it’s essentially part of a program, and it’s the output of labour performed by someone.
The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can’t be a work. That’s not… coherent. You’ve jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is “human brain has neurons”. Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can’t copyright it? I can’t patent it?
No, that’s absurd.