So now that this has expanded I will try to keep the comment brief as AI is a huge topic now. But one point being made here is that the humans are treating the computer differently than the human would treat a human.
I will argue that this is false with two main points:
1) Humans do judge other humans on the methods they evaluate or learn from the materials in question. I know this because I borrowed a "learn to draw" book from my school when I was in primary. On the bus I opened it up and instead of trying to do things free hand I started to put the paper against the book and traced directly.
Oh man, the side eye I got from the person sitting next to me could have killed.
Even when I was not selling this for profit any self gain, I was seen as cheating for doing that.
2) Humans do judge other humans when they use too much of their "inspiration" in their own original pieces. You note this "bug" in the first part where clearly the AI didn't have a robust sample set and so basically almost traced (as I did in the above example). But humans have done this too.
The most infamous example in the music world is the beginning of Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" versus Queen's "Under Pressure".
Vanilla Ice settled out of court with Queen's estate when the lawsuit was pushed forth.
----
Overall I think your viewpoint is in a way, optimistic. Who do you think the AI is going to end up working for? The regular guy on the street or the multi-billion dollar corporations who can afford to feed the machine and hire a team of lawyers to crush the works of the small time artist who even looks their way to litigate?
Now if there ends up being an AI that can compete with a team of lawyers for pennies on the dollar then perhaps us little guy will start to stand a fighting chance. But even if that was developed, do you think the big corpos are going to go quietly into said night? They created this tangled web of litigation to protect their ass(ets). Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. It's the main foundation for why the Drug War lasted so long.
So now that this has expanded I will try to keep the comment brief as AI is a huge topic now. But one point being made here is that the humans are treating the computer differently than the human would treat a human.
I will argue that this is false with two main points:
1) Humans do judge other humans on the methods they evaluate or learn from the materials in question. I know this because I borrowed a "learn to draw" book from my school when I was in primary. On the bus I opened it up and instead of trying to do things free hand I started to put the paper against the book and traced directly.
Oh man, the side eye I got from the person sitting next to me could have killed.
Even when I was not selling this for profit any self gain, I was seen as cheating for doing that.
2) Humans do judge other humans when they use too much of their "inspiration" in their own original pieces. You note this "bug" in the first part where clearly the AI didn't have a robust sample set and so basically almost traced (as I did in the above example). But humans have done this too.
The most infamous example in the music world is the beginning of Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" versus Queen's "Under Pressure".
Vanilla Ice settled out of court with Queen's estate when the lawsuit was pushed forth.
----
Overall I think your viewpoint is in a way, optimistic. Who do you think the AI is going to end up working for? The regular guy on the street or the multi-billion dollar corporations who can afford to feed the machine and hire a team of lawyers to crush the works of the small time artist who even looks their way to litigate?
Now if there ends up being an AI that can compete with a team of lawyers for pennies on the dollar then perhaps us little guy will start to stand a fighting chance. But even if that was developed, do you think the big corpos are going to go quietly into said night? They created this tangled web of litigation to protect their ass(ets). Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. It's the main foundation for why the Drug War lasted so long.