Skyrim VAs are speaking out about the spread of pornographic AI mods.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn’t contain any identifiable “copies” of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.

That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made, and certainly not something that has been tested in court, let alone found to be true.

In the context of existing legal precedent, there’s an argument to be made that the resulting model is itself a derivative work of the copyright-protected works, even if it does not literally contain an identifiable copy, as it is a derivative of the work in the common meaning of the term.

If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.

A key distinction here is that a human brain is not a work, and in that sense, a human brain learning things is not a derivative work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made

No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they’re structured. They really don’t contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

and certainly not something that has been tested in court

Sure, this is brand new tech. It takes time for the court cases to churn their way through the system. If that’s going to be the ultimate arbiter, though, then what’s to discuss in the meantime?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they’re structured. They really don’t contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

Go back and read my comment in full, please. I addressed that directly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted. And yes, images and sounds and video stored on a computer are numbers too, but those can be played back or viewed by a human in a meaningful way, and as such represent a work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted.

Just being “a bunch of numbers” doesn’t stop it from being a work, it doesn’t stop it from being a derivative work, and you absolutely can copyright data – all digitally encoded works are “just data”.

A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things – in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

In that case all work would be derivative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No? No. Not all work is analogous to training a generative model. That’s a really bizarre thing to say, and I’m shocked to hear it from you.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!tech@kbin.social

Create post

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let’s explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 1.2K

    Posts

  • 4.9K

    Comments

Community moderators