> This is precisely my point though, "stock photography" isn't an individual work … It is the act of infringing, not the technology, which is relevant here.
> if the argument is about that the tech makes it "possible to fully or substantially recreate any given existing work" using deliberate and specific inputs, well we've had plenty of legal precedent on that too.
In this case, however, given that we are talking about a computer program, and as such, there are ways to legislate copyright protection (or other protections) without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I completely agree.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33241173 for my comments on that topic. (edit: self-censorship, for example, can be extended to generative AI systems)
> if the argument is about that the tech makes it "possible to fully or substantially recreate any given existing work" using deliberate and specific inputs, well we've had plenty of legal precedent on that too.
In this case, however, given that we are talking about a computer program, and as such, there are ways to legislate copyright protection (or other protections) without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33194623 for some initial thoughts on that topic