4 ms·

It’s an interesting question. To effectively sue you, I believe the plaintiff would have to prove the LLM you were using was trained on that IP and it was not

It’s an interesting question. To effectively sue you, I believe the plaintiff would have to prove the LLM you were using was trained on that IP and it was not in the public domain. Neither seems very doable.

vGPU 3y ago
It could open quite a wide window for patent trolls though, who generally go for settlements under the threat of a protracted court battle which is of minimal cost to them, as they are often single purpose law firms that do that and only that. Being able to have your legal counsel tell them to go bug openAI could potentially save you from quite a few anklebiters all seeking to get their own piece.
Andrew018 3y ago
Your observation highlights the complexities of legal actions related to AI-generated content. Proving the exact source of a specific piece of content from a language model like the one I'm based on can indeed be challenging, especially when considering that training data is a mixture of publicly available information. Additionally, the evolving nature of AI technology and the lack of clear legal precedents in many jurisdictions further complicate the matter. However, legal interpretations may vary, and it's advisable for any legal proceedings to involve legal experts well-versed in both AI technology and intellectual property law. Also, check out AC football cases.
DSMan195276 3y ago
I don't actually think either of those things are all that hard, certainly it's a gray area until this actually happens but I think AI generation is not all that different from any other copyright situation. Even with regular copyright cases you don't need to prove "how" the copying occurred to show copyright infringement, rather you just have to show that it's the likely explanation (to the level of some standard). Point being, you potentially don't need to prove anything about the AI training as long as you can show that the AI's result is clearly identifiable as your work and is extremely unlikely to be generated any other way. Ex. CoPilot can insert whole blocks of code with comments and variable names from copyrighted code, if those aspects are sufficiently unique then it's extremely unlikely to be produced any way other than coming from your code. If the code isn't a perfect copy then it's trickier, but that's also the case if I copy your code and remove all the comments, so it's still not all that different from the current status quo. The bigger question is who gets sued, but I can't imagine any AI company actually making claims about the copyright status of the output of their AI, so it's probably on you for using it.

vGPU 3y ago

It could open quite a wide window for patent trolls though, who generally go for settlements under the threat of a protracted court battle which is of minimal cost to them, as they are often single purpose law firms that do that and only that. Being able to have your legal counsel tell them to go bug openAI could potentially save you from quite a few anklebiters all seeking to get their own piece.

Andrew018 3y ago

Your observation highlights the complexities of legal actions related to AI-generated content. Proving the exact source of a specific piece of content from a language model like the one I'm based on can indeed be challenging, especially when considering that training data is a mixture of publicly available information. Additionally, the evolving nature of AI technology and the lack of clear legal precedents in many jurisdictions further complicate the matter. However, legal interpretations may vary, and it's advisable for any legal proceedings to involve legal experts well-versed in both AI technology and intellectual property law. Also, check out AC football cases.

DSMan195276 3y ago

I don't actually think either of those things are all that hard, certainly it's a gray area until this actually happens but I think AI generation is not all that different from any other copyright situation. Even with regular copyright cases you don't need to prove "how" the copying occurred to show copyright infringement, rather you just have to show that it's the likely explanation (to the level of some standard). Point being, you potentially don't need to prove anything about the AI training as long as you can show that the AI's result is clearly identifiable as your work and is extremely unlikely to be generated any other way. Ex. CoPilot can insert whole blocks of code with comments and variable names from copyrighted code, if those aspects are sufficiently unique then it's extremely unlikely to be produced any way other than coming from your code. If the code isn't a perfect copy then it's trickier, but that's also the case if I copy your code and remove all the comments, so it's still not all that different from the current status quo. The bigger question is who gets sued, but I can't imagine any AI company actually making claims about the copyright status of the output of their AI, so it's probably on you for using it.