ai is ridiculously easier to clean room reverse if you have the dataset. but yeah, if you use some tensorflow knockoff to create art that art might not belong to you
(edit: artwork is probably not a great 1-1 example here because it is not patentable.)
1. AI is by far our least machine-like invention yet. Our ability to predict the choices a state of the art AI makes, or even reason about them, is extremely limited. As a relevant example, I would argue that AlphaGo's move 37 was creativity by the AI and not its creators, none of whom was a Go grandmaster.
2. AIs can iterate and output creative works extremely rapidly. If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach, it would allow them to amass a potential treasure trove of IP that would put everything that came before to shame. And if they then use this for litigation, then the future could be very gloomy for a while.
2. Creativity is not a fixed resource that is allocated.
> If we credit all such creative works to the AI's creator with the current IP approach
This is not the current approach. This is what the Artificial Inventor Project is lobbying the USPTO to do, and it is what I am criticizing.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action#Drugs_with...