Avram Piltch is the editor in chief of Tom’s Hardware, and he’s written a thoroughly researched article breaking down the promises and failures of LLM AIs.
There is literally not one single piece of art that is not derived from prior art in the past thousand years.
This is false. Somebody who looks at a landscape, for example, and renders that scene in visual media is not deriving anything important from prior art. Taking a video of a cat is an original creation. This kind of creation happens every day.
Their output may seem similar to prior art, perhaps their methods were developed previously. But the inputs are original and clean. They’re not using some existing art as the sole inputs.
AI only uses existing art as sole inputs. This is a crucial distinction. I would have no problem at all with AI that worked exclusively from verified public domain/copyright not enforced and original inputs, although I don’t know if I’d consider the outputs themselves to be copyrightable (as that is a right attached to a human author).
Straight up copying someone else’s work directly
And that’s what the training set is. Verbatim copies, often including copyrighted works.
That’s ultimately the question that we’re faced with. If there is no useful output without the copyrighted inputs, how can the output be non-infringing? Copyright defines transformative work as the product of human creativity, so we have to make some decisions about AI.
If they’ve seen prior art, yes, they are. It’s literally not possible to be exposed to the history of art and not have everything you output be derivative in some manner.
Processing and learning from copyrighted material is not restricted by current copyright law in any way. It cannot be infringement, and shouldn’t be able to be infringement.
It’s literally not possible to be exposed to the history of art and not have everything you output be derivative in some manner.
I respectfully disagree. You may learn methods from prior art, but there are plenty of ways to insure that content is generated only from new information. If you mean to argue that a rendering of landscape that a human is actually looking at is meaningfully derivative of someone else’s art, then I think you need to make a more compelling argument than “it just is”.
The person who painted that landscape has certainly been influenced by prior artists, is not the first person to have painted a landscape, and is creating a work directly derivative of nature itself. They didn’t appear from thin air a fully-formed human being and start painting the hills. The person filming a cat video has seen videos before. They know to hold their phone at a certain angle and in a certain orientation to get the view they want of the cat, and that also does not spring from a vacuum. These two artists are each the sum total of their own experiences, their training sets. The difference between inference and extrapolation in this context is only a matter of complexity.
