Flatlander93 t1_jaaaump wrote on February 28, 2023 at 12:04 AM

I would like to know if they had any conversation with the originators of Vampire Hunter D, sorry don't follow anime so I don't know who that is. The issue of IP is different here from the Ai image generators that have caused so much controversy among the artist community where digital and physical images were scraped from the Internet and used as seed for the Ai to learn from. I think they avoided the conundrum because they used the Vampire Hunter D film to train the Ai in a style and then processed their own original images into the style with the help of the Ai. I don't see a difference between what they did and a creative director saying, "give me a caricature in the Anime style" to an illustrator.
Basically, I think that what we are seeing is a base change in the visual art for entertainment space. Some people are going to get left behind by the technology.

I can see the other side of the issue too. If we allow training Ai in this way without permission or compensation to the originator of the art used as input, then we deny the originator any say in the use of their art. Ever since the first cave paintings there have been originators and wannabes. But, isn't that where all originators of art start out? They wanted to be an artist for whatever reason. Unless they were insanely gifted they started by trying to copy some other person's art. Until, through seemingly endless repetition they made their own original work.

Ok_Sea_6214 OP t1_jaapi7g wrote on February 28, 2023 at 1:51 AM

Yeah AI is set to change our laws. The problem here is that they admitted that they used this specific anime as a basis, but if they hadn't or used something else, or mixed up different styles, then it becomes pretty impossible to tell.

It'll come down to governments, if they side with the old guard they'll declare style is IP and knee cap this art. At which point all AI movies will be generated in a country that doesn't give two cents about IP and doesn't care to force people to disclose what material they trained the model on.

Our laws are based on human efforts, and as I said before, AI is going to smash right through that.

For example if you create an AI that kills people because you trained it on The Terminator to it could make a sequel, then are you to blame? Is the AI? How do you punish an AI? What if the AI creates a slight variation, is that AI also dangerous? Is it a copy or a relative?

So yeah this is the Singularity in my opinion, because it is changing a whole industry with just a sample.

Flatlander93 t1_jab9zs3 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 4:34 AM

I understand. I believe there is a long way to go between Ai (trained on one specific task) and AI (generalized human level or greater machine intelligence). So, a killer Ai would be able to rant madly in it's interface but stopping the process would end that.
On the IP question, there are lots of messy details that get in the way. In this case, is the IP of "Style" owned by the originators or has the whole property fallen into public domain? Issues and questions around permissions and definitions of IP will be hard fought. For me, if the current owners were contacted and asked permission, then it clearly lands in the "in the style of" area and it becomes a moot point, Who would object to an art director telling staff, "I'd like to see some concept panels in the style of "A Starry Night"? It is a very interesting piece of work. They need better dialogue though.