4 ms·

That might be the case in theory, but if a university can't tell the difference between AI generated essays/books and human generated ones the how could the cou

That might be the case in theory, but if a university can't tell the difference between AI generated essays/books and human generated ones the how could the courts?

CuriouslyC 4y ago
If someone tries to sue you for copyright infringement on a model output, you can just produce the parameters to the model that produced the output and the case will be thrown out pretty much instantly.
- spacebanana7 4y ago
  My understanding is that LLMs are generally probabilistic so repeating the inputs won’t produce the same output.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  This feels like it could easily be abused if you can get a model to output code that is "pretty close". You could use it to try and invalidate human written copyright as well.
- r00fus 4y ago
  What happens when you incidentally created something very similar to something ChatGPT could produce - does that mean you can't enforce copyright on it? (as someone could automate a prompt engineering process to create a near-copy of your original work? Let's take that to the next step - what happens if ChatGPT happens to get trained on something that is copyrightable - then a prompt script can be used to reproduce the original - does that mean the original is now considered not protected by copyright? This is a lot more murky than "show me the prompts/parameters" and it's not protected by copyright.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    If you try to sue someone for copyright infringement and they demonstrate that what you're claiming is infringement is solely the result of model output, you're going to be out of luck, and honestly I don't think that's a problem - if your creation is so derivative that a model produces it via a reasonable prompt it probably doesn't deserve protection. Using prompt interrogation on a specially fine tuned model in an attempt to end-run a reasonable copyright is a different matter, but I don't think that'd be worth the effort for anyone to actually do. If a copyright precedes the existence of a model, the model was trained on that code and someone distributes code from the model that is a near-verbatim reproduction, that's a different story (in large part because getting that near verbatim reproduction would probably require willful intent rather than just being accidental)
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Or vice versa - when you only modify answer a bit ? I guess it would be derivative work ?
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      It would be derivative work, which is copyrightable in the US. But you have to modify it enough to hit some threshold of originality.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Can you explain to a court why it is “generating” the original from scratch from a prompt and not simply retrieving the input and printing it to screen? Just out of curiosity. I don’t think the owner of the copyright loses copyright simply because something else output a copy of his work. Maybe it is “generated” but the copyright holder still has his rights per copyright statutes and you would still be violating those rights by distributing your own copies from the AI output.
- codyb 4y ago
  Aren't these models constantly updating though?

That might be the case in theory, but if a university can't tell the difference between AI generated essays/books and human generated ones the how could the courts?

CuriouslyC 4y ago

If someone tries to sue you for copyright infringement on a model output, you can just produce the parameters to the model that produced the output and the case will be thrown out pretty much instantly.

spacebanana7 4y ago
My understanding is that LLMs are generally probabilistic so repeating the inputs won’t produce the same output.
bioemerl 4y ago
This feels like it could easily be abused if you can get a model to output code that is "pretty close". You could use it to try and invalidate human written copyright as well.
r00fus 4y ago
What happens when you incidentally created something very similar to something ChatGPT could produce - does that mean you can't enforce copyright on it? (as someone could automate a prompt engineering process to create a near-copy of your original work? Let's take that to the next step - what happens if ChatGPT happens to get trained on something that is copyrightable - then a prompt script can be used to reproduce the original - does that mean the original is now considered not protected by copyright? This is a lot more murky than "show me the prompts/parameters" and it's not protected by copyright.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  If you try to sue someone for copyright infringement and they demonstrate that what you're claiming is infringement is solely the result of model output, you're going to be out of luck, and honestly I don't think that's a problem - if your creation is so derivative that a model produces it via a reasonable prompt it probably doesn't deserve protection. Using prompt interrogation on a specially fine tuned model in an attempt to end-run a reasonable copyright is a different matter, but I don't think that'd be worth the effort for anyone to actually do. If a copyright precedes the existence of a model, the model was trained on that code and someone distributes code from the model that is a near-verbatim reproduction, that's a different story (in large part because getting that near verbatim reproduction would probably require willful intent rather than just being accidental)
- ilyt 4y ago
  Or vice versa - when you only modify answer a bit ? I guess it would be derivative work ?
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    It would be derivative work, which is copyrightable in the US. But you have to modify it enough to hit some threshold of originality.
- SllX 4y ago
  Can you explain to a court why it is “generating” the original from scratch from a prompt and not simply retrieving the input and printing it to screen? Just out of curiosity. I don’t think the owner of the copyright loses copyright simply because something else output a copy of his work. Maybe it is “generated” but the copyright holder still has his rights per copyright statutes and you would still be violating those rights by distributing your own copies from the AI output.
codyb 4y ago
Aren't these models constantly updating though?