4 ms·

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. But what if the prompter then takes the AI text, c

> But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. But what if the prompter then takes the AI text, changes some of the rhymes, perhaps adds a word here or there, does it suddenly come back under copyright.

chii 4y ago
Let's take it to the extreme - if you randomly outputted noise as a picture, that picture is not copyrightable (or ditto with random letters/numbers and printed it as a book). It feels to me that the copyright office is using this similar line of logic, to make the claim that the resultant work is not copyrightable if it was wholly generated using _only_ a prompt and an AI.
- person3 4y ago
  It's a bit odd though. What if you built your own ML model and trained it over a set of data that your wrote yourself. Would the work generated by the AI based of your prompts be not be copyrightable? The original copyright laws were thought up way before even cameras, and we're still trying to apply them today to generated AI. Why can't we just realize that the world is very different now, and just create new laws? Instead we keep trying to arbitrarily interpret the law in a biased way to try to fit our modern goals as best we can.
  - chii 4y ago
    > The original copyright laws were thought up way before even cameras, and we're still trying to apply them today to generated AI but the original laws worked well with cameras didnt it? The legal idea, that unless a human had creative input, it won't have copyright, doesn't fall afoul of ai generated content. There's nuance of course - what counts as creative input etc. Of course, a new paradigm is possible with the advent of AI, but it would make copyright _looser_, rather than tighter, imho (and it would be to the progress of the arts and science to do so). But i don't see why it is fundamentally needed.

chii 4y ago

Let's take it to the extreme - if you randomly outputted noise as a picture, that picture is not copyrightable (or ditto with random letters/numbers and printed it as a book). It feels to me that the copyright office is using this similar line of logic, to make the claim that the resultant work is not copyrightable if it was wholly generated using _only_ a prompt and an AI.

person3 4y ago
It's a bit odd though. What if you built your own ML model and trained it over a set of data that your wrote yourself. Would the work generated by the AI based of your prompts be not be copyrightable? The original copyright laws were thought up way before even cameras, and we're still trying to apply them today to generated AI. Why can't we just realize that the world is very different now, and just create new laws? Instead we keep trying to arbitrarily interpret the law in a biased way to try to fit our modern goals as best we can.
- chii 4y ago
  > The original copyright laws were thought up way before even cameras, and we're still trying to apply them today to generated AI but the original laws worked well with cameras didnt it? The legal idea, that unless a human had creative input, it won't have copyright, doesn't fall afoul of ai generated content. There's nuance of course - what counts as creative input etc. Of course, a new paradigm is possible with the advent of AI, but it would make copyright _looser_, rather than tighter, imho (and it would be to the progress of the arts and science to do so). But i don't see why it is fundamentally needed.