4 ms·

The fun thing is, is that IIRC, AI outputs aren’t copyrighted so this is actually more ethical that’s what OpenAI did. The only thing is that it was probably ag

The fun thing is, is that IIRC, AI outputs aren’t copyrighted so this is actually more ethical that’s what OpenAI did. The only thing is that it was probably against the terms of service.

scarmig 3y ago
Should have read the small print.
- jamesholden 3y ago
  The irony. AI would help with that too! :D
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  I asked ChatGPT and it said it was fine.
chii 3y ago
> aren’t copyrighted so this is actually more ethical that’s what OpenAI did why is that? all works, as long as it is "original" should be granted copyright. It should belong to the person who made it (in this case, the user, not openAI).
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  What if the AI is fully autonomous, pays its own hosting bill etc? Who gets the copyright?
  - layer8 3y ago
    No one, because according to current legislation, copyright only applies to works by humans.
    - dboreham 3y ago
      Obvious new business model providing a human shill service where you look at AI output and say "yep, I made that". Now it's copyright, assigned to the customer of your startup.
      - layer8 3y ago
        Of course, people can always lie, but they also can be caught lying.
      - tedivm 3y ago
        So you're suggesting that people commit fraud, and base their business around committing fraud? I don't see that being super scalable.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      I'm asking about a hypothetical scenario where the law reflects the ideal outcome. What is the ideal outcome?
- sp332 3y ago
  Machine-generated works are not eligible for copyright, and courts have been ruling this way about AI content. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-what-do-about-it-2023-12-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-crea... Early days and there are still appeals as well as new legislation in progress, but that's where it stands now.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Generative AI has basically made what were once fairly irrelevant edge cases (what if I tie together a bunch of random number generators to create art work?) a lot more interesting. And laws will probably have to be adapted.
  - spigottoday 3y ago
    In the Monkey selfie copyright dispute Slater could not claim copyright because he did not operate the camera. Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. If Mr. Slater was incorporated would his copyright ownership be clear? If an ai was a corporation not an asset of a corporation and could prompt it's self would the output then be copyrightable? There are a lot of ifs in there but still interesting.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      IANAL, but I would guess it depends on whether the animal is an "employee" of the company. Obviously there are animals that are owned by companies and, if they create something, the company I assume would own it whether or not it was considered a work for hire in the usual sense. But that would presumably not have been the case here.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > It should belong to the person who made it thats the contention, its not a person who's made it.
- crote 3y ago
  It's not that cut-and-dry. If I say to one of my human friends "write me a nursery rhyme", the copyright of the resulting rhyme would obviously belong to my friend - despite me prompting them. Clearly the prompt itself does not universally count as "making" it. Let's say I made a "NovelSnippetAI", which contains a corpus of prewritten material. You can prompt it, and it will return a page which matches the sentiment of your prompt best. I think we can agree that the copyright of the page will still belong to the original writer - the user only did a query. What if I did "NovelMixAI", which did exactly the same but alternated lines from the two best matches? What about "NovelTransformAI", which applied a mathematical formula to the best match and fed the output to a fixed Markov Chain? Now we're suddenly at "LLMAI", which does the same using a neural network - what makes it different from the rest? Long-standing precedent is that any automated work does not qualify for copyright. You can only copyright human work.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    > If I say to one of my human friends "write me a nursery rhyme", the copyright of the resulting rhyme would obviously belong to my friend - despite me prompting them. Clearly the prompt itself does not universally count as "making" it. This is the wrong analogy. The LLM is more like Photoshop and the prompt little more than a filter configuration. A machine cannot copyright its own output but a human guiding that machine can.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      It is more like a child's speak and say. Push a button a cow noise comes out. Someone else pushes it the same noise comes out. Even if a billion buttons exist the child doesn't own the cow noise.
    - crote 3y ago
      No, it's the right analogy for the point I was making. That analogy is there to point out that it is about more than just the prompt, and prompting a machine is covered in the rest of my comment.
  - qotgalaxy 3y ago
- INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
  no AI output is "original"
- nullc 3y ago
  In the US, Copyright requires creative input by a person. Just because "work" was done doesn't make something copyrightable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

The fun thing is, is that IIRC, AI outputs aren’t copyrighted so this is actually more ethical that’s what OpenAI did. The only thing is that it was probably against the terms of service.

scarmig 3y ago

Should have read the small print.

jamesholden 3y ago
The irony. AI would help with that too! :D
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
I asked ChatGPT and it said it was fine.

chii 3y ago

> aren’t copyrighted so this is actually more ethical that’s what OpenAI did why is that? all works, as long as it is "original" should be granted copyright. It should belong to the person who made it (in this case, the user, not openAI).

soulofmischief 3y ago
What if the AI is fully autonomous, pays its own hosting bill etc? Who gets the copyright?
- layer8 3y ago
  No one, because according to current legislation, copyright only applies to works by humans.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    Obvious new business model providing a human shill service where you look at AI output and say "yep, I made that". Now it's copyright, assigned to the customer of your startup.
    - layer8 3y ago
      Of course, people can always lie, but they also can be caught lying.
    - tedivm 3y ago
      So you're suggesting that people commit fraud, and base their business around committing fraud? I don't see that being super scalable.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    I'm asking about a hypothetical scenario where the law reflects the ideal outcome. What is the ideal outcome?
sp332 3y ago
Machine-generated works are not eligible for copyright, and courts have been ruling this way about AI content. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-what-do-about-it-2023-12-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-crea... Early days and there are still appeals as well as new legislation in progress, but that's where it stands now.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Generative AI has basically made what were once fairly irrelevant edge cases (what if I tie together a bunch of random number generators to create art work?) a lot more interesting. And laws will probably have to be adapted.
- spigottoday 3y ago
  In the Monkey selfie copyright dispute Slater could not claim copyright because he did not operate the camera. Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. If Mr. Slater was incorporated would his copyright ownership be clear? If an ai was a corporation not an asset of a corporation and could prompt it's self would the output then be copyrightable? There are a lot of ifs in there but still interesting.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    IANAL, but I would guess it depends on whether the animal is an "employee" of the company. Obviously there are animals that are owned by companies and, if they create something, the company I assume would own it whether or not it was considered a work for hire in the usual sense. But that would presumably not have been the case here.
KaiserPro 3y ago
> It should belong to the person who made it thats the contention, its not a person who's made it.
crote 3y ago
It's not that cut-and-dry. If I say to one of my human friends "write me a nursery rhyme", the copyright of the resulting rhyme would obviously belong to my friend - despite me prompting them. Clearly the prompt itself does not universally count as "making" it. Let's say I made a "NovelSnippetAI", which contains a corpus of prewritten material. You can prompt it, and it will return a page which matches the sentiment of your prompt best. I think we can agree that the copyright of the page will still belong to the original writer - the user only did a query. What if I did "NovelMixAI", which did exactly the same but alternated lines from the two best matches? What about "NovelTransformAI", which applied a mathematical formula to the best match and fed the output to a fixed Markov Chain? Now we're suddenly at "LLMAI", which does the same using a neural network - what makes it different from the rest? Long-standing precedent is that any automated work does not qualify for copyright. You can only copyright human work.
- throwup238 3y ago
  > If I say to one of my human friends "write me a nursery rhyme", the copyright of the resulting rhyme would obviously belong to my friend - despite me prompting them. Clearly the prompt itself does not universally count as "making" it. This is the wrong analogy. The LLM is more like Photoshop and the prompt little more than a filter configuration. A machine cannot copyright its own output but a human guiding that machine can.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    It is more like a child's speak and say. Push a button a cow noise comes out. Someone else pushes it the same noise comes out. Even if a billion buttons exist the child doesn't own the cow noise.
  - crote 3y ago
    No, it's the right analogy for the point I was making. That analogy is there to point out that it is about more than just the prompt, and prompting a machine is covered in the rest of my comment.
- qotgalaxy 3y ago
INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
no AI output is "original"
nullc 3y ago
In the US, Copyright requires creative input by a person. Just because "work" was done doesn't make something copyrightable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]