3 ms·
I think the definition between "Lossy Compression" and "Trained AI" is... vague according to the current legal definitions. Or even "lossless" in some cases - a
by kimixa 2y ago
I think the definition between "Lossy Compression" and "Trained AI" is... vague according to the current legal definitions. Or even "lossless" in some cases - as shown by people being able to get written articles output verbatim.
While the extremes are obvious, there's a big stretch of gray in the middle. A similar issue occurs in non-AI art, the difference between inspiration and tracing/copying isn't well defined either, but the current method of dealing with that (being on a case-by-case basis and a human judging the difference) clearly cannot scale to the level that many people intend to use these tools.
- cthalupa 2y agoHas anyone been able to actually get a verbatim copy of a written article? The NYT got a ~100 word fragment made up of multiple snippets of a ~15k word article, with the different snippets not even being in order. (The Times had to re-arrange the snippets to match the article after the fact) I am simply not aware of anyone successfully doing this.
- kimixa 2y agoThe amount of content required to call it a "Copy" is also a gray area. Same with the idea of "prompting" and the amount required to generate that copywritten output - again there's the extremes of "The prompt includes copywritten information" to "Vague description". Arguably some of the same issues exist outside AI, just it's accessibility, scale, and lack of a "Legal Individual" on one side complicates things. For example, if I describe Micky Mouse sufficiently accurately to an artist they reproduce it to the degree it's considered copyright infringement, is it me or the artist that did the infringement? Then what if the artist /had/ seen the previously copywritten artwork, but still produced the same output from that same detailed prompt?