3 ms·

> The output of the LLM is very different from the original, though I will disagree with that characterisation. IMHO: In some cases no, it's not different, the

> The output of the LLM is very different from the original, though I will disagree with that characterisation. IMHO: In some cases no, it's not different, there are clear lines from inputs to output. In some cases yes, it's different from any one input work, it's distributed micro-plagiarism of a huge number of sources. In no case is it original. But I think that this is legally undecided and won't be decided by you or me, and it is going to be a more interesting and relevant question than "is the LLM model is very like the original work", which it clearly isn't. That's like asking "is this typewriter like this novel?" It can't be, but the words that came out of it could be.

ijk 1y ago
Yeah, the way the courts decide is unlikely to turn on a detail of how the technology works, so it's difficult for non-legal experts to predict the outcome on the technical merits (since the law has very different priorities). Music has ended up in a place where short audio snippets are protected by copyright and must be licensed; but for short snippets of text the precedent has generally been that the copying needs to be more substantial. Distributed microplagarism of short phases might end up being ruled to be legal, even if wholesale reproduction is not. Which may not give copyright protection to the generated works, of course, as the question of machine authoring is entirely distinct.
sillysaurusx 1y ago
> In some cases yes, it's different from any one input work, it's distributed micro-plagiarism of a huge number of sources. In no case is it original. That’s like saying the dictionary is micro-plagiarism of a huge number of sources because it uses all the words from those sources.
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  I disagree, you can't ask a dictionary to "generate 2000 words in the style of (author)".
  - sillysaurusx 1y ago
    So? Why is that, of all things, the crux of whether it’s copyright infringement? Plagiarism isn’t necessarily copyright infringement, and plagiarism isn’t illegal. Copyright infringement is. Even still, your argument that everyone who generates 2,000 words in the style of (author) is plagiarizing is also flatly false. By that standard all English essays that mimic someone else’s style would be plagiarism.

ijk 1y ago

Yeah, the way the courts decide is unlikely to turn on a detail of how the technology works, so it's difficult for non-legal experts to predict the outcome on the technical merits (since the law has very different priorities). Music has ended up in a place where short audio snippets are protected by copyright and must be licensed; but for short snippets of text the precedent has generally been that the copying needs to be more substantial. Distributed microplagarism of short phases might end up being ruled to be legal, even if wholesale reproduction is not. Which may not give copyright protection to the generated works, of course, as the question of machine authoring is entirely distinct.

sillysaurusx 1y ago

> In some cases yes, it's different from any one input work, it's distributed micro-plagiarism of a huge number of sources. In no case is it original. That’s like saying the dictionary is micro-plagiarism of a huge number of sources because it uses all the words from those sources.

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
I disagree, you can't ask a dictionary to "generate 2000 words in the style of (author)".
- sillysaurusx 1y ago
  So? Why is that, of all things, the crux of whether it’s copyright infringement? Plagiarism isn’t necessarily copyright infringement, and plagiarism isn’t illegal. Copyright infringement is. Even still, your argument that everyone who generates 2,000 words in the style of (author) is plagiarizing is also flatly false. By that standard all English essays that mimic someone else’s style would be plagiarism.