vidarh

You can see the difference in the process in the results, for example in how some generated pictures will contain something like a signature in the corner

If you were to train human children on an endless series of pictures with signatures in the corner, do you seriously think they'd not emulate signatures in the corner?

If you think that, you haven't seen many children's drawings, because children also often pick up that it's normal to put something in the corner, despite the fact that to children pictures with signatures is a tiny proportion of visual input.

Or how it is at least possible to get the model to output something extremely close to the training data

People also mimic. We often explicitly learn to mimic - e.g. I have my sons art folder right here, full of examples of him being explicitly taught to make direct copies as a means to learn technique.

We just don't have very good memory. This is an argument for a difference in ability to retain and reproduce inputs, not an argument for a difference in methods.

And again, this is a strawman. It doesn't even begin to try to answer the questions I asked, or the one raised by the person you first responded to.

That at least proves that the process is quite different to the process of human learning.

Neither of those really suggests that all (that diffusion is different to humans learn to generalize images is likely true, what you've described does not provide even the start of any evidence of that), but again that is a strawman.

There was no claim they work the same. The question raised was how the way they're trained is different from how a human learns styles.

This idea that copyright and IP shouldn’t exist at all is kinda absurd.

For the majority of human existence, that was the default.

Copyright exists as an explicit tradeoff between the rights of the public to be able to do as they please with stuff introduced into the public sphere, and a legal limitation infringing on the publics liberty for a limited time for the purpose of encouraging the creation of more works for the public benefit. It was not introduced as some sort of inherent right, but as a trade between the public and creators to incentivise them.

Stripping it away from existing artists who has come to depend on it without some alternative would be grossly unfair, but there's nothing absurd about wanting to change the bargain over time. After all, that has been done many times, and the copyright we have now is vastly different and far more expansive and lengthy than early copyright protection.

Personally, I'd be in favour of finding alternative means of supporting creators and stripping back copyright as a tradeoff. The vast majority of creators earn next to nothing from their works; only a very tiny minority makes a livable wage of art of any form at all, and of the rest the vast majority of profits take place in a very short period of initial exploitation of a work, so we could allow the vast majority to earn more from their art relatively cheaply, and affect the rest to a relatively limited degree, while benefiting from the reduced restrictions.

Society is built to distribute wealth, so that everyone can live a decent life.

As a goal, I admire it, but if you intend this as a description of how things are it'd be boundlessly naive.

Human brains clearly work differently than AI, how is this even a question?

It's not all that clear that those differences are qualitatively meaningful, but that is irrelevant to the question they asked, so this is entirely a strawman.

Why does the way AI vs. the brain learn make training AI with art make it different to a person studying art styles? Both learn to generalise features that allows them to reproduce them. Both can do so without copying specific source material.

The term “learning” in machine learning is mainly a metaphor.

How do the way they learn differ from how humans learn? They generalise. They form "world models" of how information relates. They extrapolate.

Also, laws are written with a practical purpose in mind - they are not some universal, purely philosophical construct and never have been.

This is the only uncontroversial part of your answer. The main reason why courts will treat human and AI actions different is simply that they are not human. It will for the foreseeable future have little to do whether the processes are similar enough to how humans do it.

They don't even need to detect them - once they are common enough in training datasets the training process will "just" learn that the noise they introduce are not features relevant to the desired output. If there are enough images like that it might eventually generate images with the same features.

That is a reason for arguing that people don't always make smart choices. It is however not an argument for claiming how people vote does not show what their preference is at the time of voting, which is what is relevant here.

It's perfectly fine to argue you think it's stupid of people to want to read about Musk, but the votes clearly show they do in fact want to.

No, the antics of a tech company owner are not relevant to a technology sub.

The votes prove you wrong, no matter what your opinion on it is. You're free to disagree, but the notion that the people who make up this community are not the arbiters of what is and is not relevant to a community flies directly in the face of the very foundation Lemmy is built on.

How he picks his nose doesn't matter. How he runs a tech company and how he affects people working in tech does.

And the popular answer does equal the right answer when the question is "does this community think this question is relevant to this community?" The votes are literally this community telling you whether or not it thinks that is true.

Or, you know, seeing as you guys are the ones being downvoted into the negative, you could take your own advice and start your own Elon-free tech community. Nothing is stopping you.

I think Hong Kong is the rare exception that's at least possible to reasonably argue, since the alternative was never independence but being ruled by someone granting even fewer freedoms.

You see similar issues with French ex-colonies, but since they weren’t as many they don’t appear as much in the news.

Or people aren't as aware of them. E.g. notably their mandates in Syria and Lebanon after World War 1 where they intentionally stirred divisions on the basis of a theory of wanting to keep it so France as a mediator was needed in order to keep them stable. And then they fucked off and left chaos behind.

1/4 yes, but also worth mentioning that today far more than 1/4 of the present-day population live in that quarter of the world that has a history of being under British rule in recent history.

Couple that with the UK population being far more likely to be proud of the empire, wish Britain still had an empire, and insist the colonies wee left better off for having been oppressed, the British Empire has a certain stench about it many of the others haven't, or haven't anymore because of either age, a greater willingness to admit it was a bad thing, or lack of scale.