Well, current law is not written with AI in mind, so what current law says about the legality of AI doesn't reflect its morality or how we should regulate it in the future

[–] TotallynotJessica 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The law actually does a better job than you'd think. While it says little about stealing work to train neural networks, it does say that the final result requires significant human input to be eligible for copyright. It's the same precedent that prevents the copyright of a selfie taken by a monkey. Non human intelligences can't own stuff, and AI art isn't made by a human intelligence, so it's all public domain right now. It cannot be stolen unless someone has put in significantly more work on top of it.

[–] AdrianTheFrog 4 points 4 months ago

I was talking more about whether the existence of an image AI, regardless of the images it generates, breaks copyright law because of how it was trained on copyrighted images