I feel like this is less of a big decision and more of a ‘duh’ sort of situation. To my understanding this isn’t saying that all AI art violates copyright, but that AI art which does violate copyright can’t be used.
Like if i took a picture of Darth Vader and handed it to NightCafe to fool around with, that still belongs to Disney. Steam is legally required to act if a valid DMCA is sent, and to adhere to the court’s ruling in the case of a dispute.
I feel like this is a reassurance that they intend to obey copyright law rather than a restriction of all AI art. Basically they’re saying that if you DMCA someone in good faith on the basis of derivative works, they’ll play ball.
Right, the phrasing is “copyright-infringing AI assets” rather than a much more controversial “all AI assets, due to copyright-infringement concerns.”
I do think there’s a bigger discussion that we need to have about the ethics and legality of AI training and generation. These models can reproduce exact copies of existing works (see: Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4).
Sure, but plagiarism isn’t unique to LLMs. I could get an AI to produce something preexisting word for word, but that’s on my use of the model, not on the LLM.
I get the concerns about extrapolating how to create works similar to those made by humans from actual human works, but that’s how people learn to make stuff too. We experience art and learn from it in order to enrich our lives, and to progress as artists ourselves.
To me, the power put into the hands of creators to work without the need for corporate interference is well worth the consideration of LLMs learning from the things we’re all putting out there in public.
I feel like this is less of a big decision and more of a ‘duh’ sort of situation. To my understanding this isn’t saying that all AI art violates copyright, but that AI art which does violate copyright can’t be used.
Like if i took a picture of Darth Vader and handed it to NightCafe to fool around with, that still belongs to Disney. Steam is legally required to act if a valid DMCA is sent, and to adhere to the court’s ruling in the case of a dispute.
I feel like this is a reassurance that they intend to obey copyright law rather than a restriction of all AI art. Basically they’re saying that if you DMCA someone in good faith on the basis of derivative works, they’ll play ball.
Right, the phrasing is “copyright-infringing AI assets” rather than a much more controversial “all AI assets, due to copyright-infringement concerns.”
I do think there’s a bigger discussion that we need to have about the ethics and legality of AI training and generation. These models can reproduce exact copies of existing works (see: Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4).
Sure, but plagiarism isn’t unique to LLMs. I could get an AI to produce something preexisting word for word, but that’s on my use of the model, not on the LLM.
I get the concerns about extrapolating how to create works similar to those made by humans from actual human works, but that’s how people learn to make stuff too. We experience art and learn from it in order to enrich our lives, and to progress as artists ourselves.
To me, the power put into the hands of creators to work without the need for corporate interference is well worth the consideration of LLMs learning from the things we’re all putting out there in public.