I don't consider it a logical fallacy so much as a philosophical debate on art vs theft that exists in both human and AI worlds.
IMO Nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to learn, to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else (or put another way, art is more like a sum of your influences). The only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is.
And in the US at least, from a legal perspective, this "how obvious is it" subjective test is often one way that copyright disputes are settled.
For example there have been many cases of similar sounding songs that either did in fact draw an influence from an existing track (whether consciously or not), or were more likely just coincidental... but courts have ruled both ways in such cases, even if they sound extremely similar.
alt Hacker News
I don't consider it a logical fallacy so much as a philosophical debate on art vs theft that exists in both human and AI worlds.
IMO Nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to learn, to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else (or put another way, art is more like a sum of your influences). The only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is.
And in the US at least, from a legal perspective, this "how obvious is it" subjective test is often one way that copyright disputes are settled.
For example there have been many cases of similar sounding songs that either did in fact draw an influence from an existing track (whether consciously or not), or were more likely just coincidental... but courts have ruled both ways in such cases, even if they sound extremely similar.