3 ms·
IIRC courts have already ruled AI-generated works cannot have copyright. So there is already a legal distinction between a human and a model creating works. I
by plagiarist 3y ago
IIRC courts have already ruled AI-generated works cannot have copyright. So there is already a legal distinction between a human and a model creating works.
I also doubt "humans are just a larger Markov chain than the LLM and they're allowed to" will hold up in court.
- brookst 3y agoI don’t see what eligibility to have works protected has to do with legality of learning. I really hope “copyright can be used to prohibit reading and learning” does not hold up in court. Copyright is, and should be, a protection from unauthorized reproduction. Extending it to protect the abstract ideas would be a disaster. And extending it to control stylistic learning would be even worse.
- plagiarist 3y agoYou are not understanding and making a lot of assumptions isn't a substitute for that.
- brookst 3y agoHard to argue with that level of reasoning and sourcing.