4 ms·
> it would change nothing to the fundamental nature of the machine: an automated means of generating derivative works without artistic or scientific agency. So
by shagie 4y ago
> it would change nothing to the fundamental nature of the machine: an automated means of generating derivative works without artistic or scientific agency.
So is a Xerox machine (or Cannon copier or 'MFD')
The issue there is not "if it can" or even "if it is designed to do so" but rather "can it be used in a way that is not infringing" and "if there is an infringement from its use, the human doing that is the one liable."
And yet, there are non-infringing uses of the Xerox machine.
Even if one was to accept the position that the only thing that GPT can produce is derivative works it doesn't rule out that there are transformative and non-infringing uses of it.
- cornholio 4y agoNo xerox machine comes with an embedded copy of Harry Potter that can be reproduced at the push off a button. That's the crux of the issue, that you can't separate the training data from the derivation ability. If it's just an AI algorithm that could, when trained in a certain way, produce derivative infringing works, nobody would object to it.