/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6914817
regarding that google hosting images thing. It only applies to the U.S. jurisdiction, and other countries may have different laws and interpretations of fair use or fair dealing. For example, in Germany, the federal court of justice ruled that Google’s image search engine does not violate copyright by showing thumbnails of copyright-infringing pictures. But in France, the court of appeal of Paris ordered Google to pay €1.6 million to a group of photographers and photo agencies for displaying their works without authorization.

>>6904260
>what if step 3 is everything posted in this image? >>6904095
"from its training data" that does not belong to the creator of the AI. if it did, no problem. why can't there be consent for how data is used?

>what if the in-data and out-data are fundamentally different, save for them depicting the same type of thing? (dog vs dog)
The fact that you can prompt AI and see some of the training data means we know it's not always fundamentally different. if it actually was, even then I don't think it changes much, it would still be doing something particular without consent of the creator of that data.
>what if the in-data is literally not even inside the model, and only its understanding of the data is inside the model?
as above
what if by looking at a zillion faces, the AI actually learns the shape of a face, where the eyes can go and how everything plays together?
as above as above, all about who allowed their face to be trained on.
>what if, when you write "dog" the AI is actually building a dog from scratch, using its learned understanding of what a dog can look like?
and yes, BUILDING.
Building huh. maybe using the dna data it could one day? and extrapolating 3d forms etc like how the latest forensic tech can guess what someones face might look like from dna? I don't really have an issue for dogs. natural objects with no human/creator are not really the concern here.