So, back in the 90s and 2000s, you could get The Gimp image editor, and you could use the equivalent of Word Art to take a word or phase and make it look cool, with effects like lava or glowing stone, or whatever. The Gimp used ImageMagick to do this, and it legit looked cool at the time.
If you weren't good at The Gimp, which required a lot of knowledge, you could generate a cool website logo by going to a web server that someone built, giving them a word or phrase, and then selecting the pre-built options that did the same thing - you were somewhat limited in customization, but on the backend, it was using ImageMagick just like The Gimp was.
If someone used The Gimp or ImageMagick to make copyrighted material, nobody would blame the authors of The Gimp, right? The software were very nonspecific tools created for broad purposes, that of making images. Just because some bozo used them to create a protected image of Mickey Mouse doesn't mean that the software authors should be held accountable.
But if someone made the equivalent of one of those websites, and the website said, "click here to generate a random picture of Mickey Mouse", then it feels like the person running the website should at least be held partially responsible, right? Here is a thing that was created for the specific purpose of breaking the law upon request. But what is the culpability of the person initiating the request?
Anyway, the scale of AI is staggering, and I agree with you, and I think that common decency dictates that the actions of the product should be limited when possible to fall within the ethics of the organization providing the service, but the responsibility for making this tool do heinous things should be borne by the person giving the order.
I agree, but I don't know where that line is.
So, back in the 90s and 2000s, you could get The Gimp image editor, and you could use the equivalent of Word Art to take a word or phase and make it look cool, with effects like lava or glowing stone, or whatever. The Gimp used ImageMagick to do this, and it legit looked cool at the time.
If you weren't good at The Gimp, which required a lot of knowledge, you could generate a cool website logo by going to a web server that someone built, giving them a word or phrase, and then selecting the pre-built options that did the same thing - you were somewhat limited in customization, but on the backend, it was using ImageMagick just like The Gimp was.
If someone used The Gimp or ImageMagick to make copyrighted material, nobody would blame the authors of The Gimp, right? The software were very nonspecific tools created for broad purposes, that of making images. Just because some bozo used them to create a protected image of Mickey Mouse doesn't mean that the software authors should be held accountable.
But if someone made the equivalent of one of those websites, and the website said, "click here to generate a random picture of Mickey Mouse", then it feels like the person running the website should at least be held partially responsible, right? Here is a thing that was created for the specific purpose of breaking the law upon request. But what is the culpability of the person initiating the request?
Anyway, the scale of AI is staggering, and I agree with you, and I think that common decency dictates that the actions of the product should be limited when possible to fall within the ethics of the organization providing the service, but the responsibility for making this tool do heinous things should be borne by the person giving the order.