3 ms·

If their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? If I make my own image of Spider-Man or some similar IP, tha

by hajile 3y ago

If their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? If I make my own image of Spider-Man or some similar IP, that image is still a derivative and subject to copyright claims. Even if I claimed “I never knew about a character like this before”, I’d still get hit with a massive infringement claim. How is predictive AI any different? If you feed in copyrighted or trade secret material, how are you not responsible for suspect output?

api 3y ago
It’s like saying you own an image after JPEG compressing it. There are going to be lawsuits, but MS is so big they might just consider settling them part of the cost of making sure they are on the cutting edge of generative AI.
marcus0x62 3y ago
> If their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? How would you know the LLM used your work specifically and then prove that in court?
- charles_f 3y ago
  It's their problem to build lineage in their system. Breach of licence and copyright laws is still illegal even if its very well concealed. Lots of their customers' code is requiring attribution, or specifies acceptable uses (notably, what kind of license the product built with your code is allowed to have). Beyond simple copyright to which anyone can pretend, they're also concealing this.
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    > It's their problem to build lineage in their system From a practical standpoint, I don’t see how that is true. In order to establish (civil) liability in the United States, someone would have to file suit, survive the inevitable standing challenges, and demonstrate on the preponderance of the evidence that they had been harmed by this conduct. If you can’t prove your code was reproduced by this model, I don’t see how you can successfully do that.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Truly curious, do you feel the same way about art whose creator/s did not go out of their way to copyright images?

by hajile 3y ago

api 3y ago

It’s like saying you own an image after JPEG compressing it. There are going to be lawsuits, but MS is so big they might just consider settling them part of the cost of making sure they are on the cutting edge of generative AI.

marcus0x62 3y ago

> If their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? How would you know the LLM used your work specifically and then prove that in court?

charles_f 3y ago
It's their problem to build lineage in their system. Breach of licence and copyright laws is still illegal even if its very well concealed. Lots of their customers' code is requiring attribution, or specifies acceptable uses (notably, what kind of license the product built with your code is allowed to have). Beyond simple copyright to which anyone can pretend, they're also concealing this.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  > It's their problem to build lineage in their system From a practical standpoint, I don’t see how that is true. In order to establish (civil) liability in the United States, someone would have to file suit, survive the inevitable standing challenges, and demonstrate on the preponderance of the evidence that they had been harmed by this conduct. If you can’t prove your code was reproduced by this model, I don’t see how you can successfully do that.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

Truly curious, do you feel the same way about art whose creator/s did not go out of their way to copyright images?