So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?
> So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you?
when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know
So, reading your comment, I can infer that the main problem is not the fact that the AI was trained on copyrighted data, but the fact that its performance outperforms that of a human artist.
But the question was not so stupid as it underlines the actual problem of AI, the scale on which it operates, not the fact that a machine could learn similarly to a human. I found the question pretty clever.
I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.
There's a parallel in policing: driving around and looking up plate numbers is perfectly fine in the opinion of some, but automating the same task by fixing cameras to police cars and using computer vision to do the task makes it qualitatively different. Scale can have an impact on the way tasks are viewed.
Computers aren’t humans. Software isn’t a person. If you’re going to argue as if computers are now people and deserve having laws apply to them, think about the implications of you owning a human.
