a reply to:
beyondknowledge
I think, reading some of the responses, that there is a definition issue. What is "intelligence"? It is one of those things that for years, I
considered similar to porn... no real definition, but I knew it when I saw it.
But I was thinking about this thread and I think I now have a definition. I define intelligence as "the ability to independently consider, plan, and
execute a series of actions to achieve one or more independently determined goals."
No computer can do that; no program can do that. All computers simply execute programs fed to them. All programs are a series of algorithms developed
by a human with intelligence, translated into commands the computer can recognize and execute. That's as far as it goes... no thought, no planning, no
consideration except as has been programmed in.
In contrast, I can plan to execute a series of actions that achieve my goal. For instance, I am considering trying my hand at beekeeping. Where did
that come from? Let me explain the train of thought that led me to that goal:
It started with me thinking about this year's garden, and what I would like to do different from last year. Last year the garden produced little
although it bloomed quite vociferously. I know that bees pollinate vegetables and that better pollination will likely lead to better yields. We have
some bees, but apparently not enough. My next thought was how could I encourage more bees? Provide them a place to live here... OK, that's called
"beekeeping."
What is required for beekeeping? As I am not able to do physical work like I once could, the time and energy spent must be low. It is! One, maybe two
harvests a year, each one taking one or two days (at my physical level) and regular visits just to check on them. That works, so I proceed to the next
step.
How much does it cost? I have to be able to afford to do it and I am on a fixed income. Well, there are a couple pieces of equipment for the
harvesting, the hive itself, and the bees of course. I can build the hive myself from lumber I have, so I make up a budget based on what I think I
need after watching several videos about beekeeping and reading several articles. It turns out to be affordable. I still have one issue: where to buy
the bees. So I have to find places that will sell me the bees. I find them.
At every step, I am looking for a better way. I find several different hive designs to choose from based on how many bees I want to keep. I learn that
the lumber I planned to use is not the best for that purpose... I was planning on using cedar, but it turns out many wild bees like cedar and will
attack my hive. So I set up a swap with a sawmill: an oak log that just fell in exchange for poplar lumber. I examine different areas to see where to
keep them... I want them close enough to check/harvest easily, but not so close as to be a nuisance around the house.
In short, I go through question after question, none of which were given to me to ask myself. Every one I came up with independently. The very goal of
raising bees was an independent thought based on another goal: a better garden harvest. At every stage, I had to consider not what the most efficient
or least expensive method was, but which method suited a variety of different parameters that only applied to my specific needs. A computer cannot do
that. A computer cannot decide it wants to raise bees for a garden or even that it wants to grow a garden; someone has to tell it that it wants to
grow the garden.
That's what separates intelligence from mechanics.
Now, applying that to the question of copyright: art is the production of an item that communicates emotion through various media. It is intended to
be pleasurable to the artist as well, a way to express themselves. Therefore, it must be an independent goal. Since no machine can develop an
independent goal, no machine can "create art." The computer can obviously
help to create art, but so can a camera, a paintbrush, sculpting
tools, etc. Therefore, "AI" produced art, where the artist inputs the emotion they wish to express or perhaps keywords and allows a computer program
to draw from the work of others to create it is certainly not art... it is plagiarism of the art of others, simply projected through the lens the
programmer, not the artist, has defined. The artist only points the "AI" in a direction.
As such, since copyright is there to prevent plagiarism, it makes no sense to allow copyright of that which is created from plagiarism. Even if
copyright were allowed, would the true intelligence behind the art be the artist, or the programmer who defined how the artist would be understood?
I think the court ruling is correct. "AI" created art should not be copyrightable.
TheRedneck