4 ms·

Oh, please let it be the second option. Let AI be the thing that kills the "intellectual property" because humans will never manage to shake off that terribly w

Oh, please let it be the second option. Let AI be the thing that kills the "intellectual property" because humans will never manage to shake off that terribly wrong decision by themselves.

Charon77 4mo ago
You can't prove something is/isn't created with AI. Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well
- lelanthran 4mo ago
  > Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well Why not? Content that isn't under copyright can certainly infringe copyright. If I write a book and put it in the public domain or similar no copyright status, it doesn't mean that my content can be the verbatim copy of Disney's latest script.
- ajkjk 4mo ago
  Of the three claims you just made, two are clearly false and the third is probably also... You can prove something is created by AI by e.g. showing the transcripts, especially from the vendor side. You cannot prove that something isn't created with AI, at least not if you require incontrovertible proof (outside of, like, working in some kind of verifiably AI-free clean room, or doing something that current models are provably unable to demonstrate). But you certainly might be able to prove it to the satisfaction of the legal system. If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of.
  - RHSeeger 4mo ago
    > If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of. I assume the idea is that the fault/blame lies with the human(s) that caused the AI to generate something that violates copyright. Going back to previous comments, the typewriter that generated a document didn't infringe copyright - the person using it did.
    - ajkjk 4mo ago
      that's fair, I was interpreting them differently.
    - Electricniko 4mo ago
      Just to be clear, when you mention the person who caused the AI to generate something, do you mean the person who trained the AI on copyrighted material so that it can reproduce it, or the person who put a prompt in to reproduce the copyrighted material?
      - RHSeeger 4mo ago
        Depends on the context, but both.
- kube-system 4mo ago
  Who says you need to? You can't definitively prove that prior art does/doesn't exist, either. That's not an impediment to getting a patent. The patent will be examined and issued based on the evidence found. If invalidating evidence is found later, the patent can be invalidated. In a legal context what is necessary is evidence, not a math/logic formal proof. > Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well Because AI cannot pay fines, go to jail, or be assigned the rights of a human. However, a human who uses AI can. If you use AI to infringe copyright, you have infringed the copyright, not the AI.
  - shh_labs 4mo ago
    Unless you are questioning the truthfulness of libraries, it is possible to definitively prove that prior art does exist
    - kube-system 4mo ago
      It can be pretty good evidence, but not everything written in a book is definitively true.
- marking-time 4mo ago
  You can definitely prove a human created something.

Oh, please let it be the second option. Let AI be the thing that kills the "intellectual property" because humans will never manage to shake off that terribly wrong decision by themselves.

Charon77 4mo ago

You can't prove something is/isn't created with AI. Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well

lelanthran 4mo ago
> Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well Why not? Content that isn't under copyright can certainly infringe copyright. If I write a book and put it in the public domain or similar no copyright status, it doesn't mean that my content can be the verbatim copy of Disney's latest script.
ajkjk 4mo ago
Of the three claims you just made, two are clearly false and the third is probably also... You can prove something is created by AI by e.g. showing the transcripts, especially from the vendor side. You cannot prove that something isn't created with AI, at least not if you require incontrovertible proof (outside of, like, working in some kind of verifiably AI-free clean room, or doing something that current models are provably unable to demonstrate). But you certainly might be able to prove it to the satisfaction of the legal system. If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of.
- RHSeeger 4mo ago
  > If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of. I assume the idea is that the fault/blame lies with the human(s) that caused the AI to generate something that violates copyright. Going back to previous comments, the typewriter that generated a document didn't infringe copyright - the person using it did.
  - ajkjk 4mo ago
    that's fair, I was interpreting them differently.
  - Electricniko 4mo ago
    Just to be clear, when you mention the person who caused the AI to generate something, do you mean the person who trained the AI on copyrighted material so that it can reproduce it, or the person who put a prompt in to reproduce the copyrighted material?
    - RHSeeger 4mo ago
      Depends on the context, but both.
kube-system 4mo ago
Who says you need to? You can't definitively prove that prior art does/doesn't exist, either. That's not an impediment to getting a patent. The patent will be examined and issued based on the evidence found. If invalidating evidence is found later, the patent can be invalidated. In a legal context what is necessary is evidence, not a math/logic formal proof. > Also, if AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, they can't infringe copyright as well Because AI cannot pay fines, go to jail, or be assigned the rights of a human. However, a human who uses AI can. If you use AI to infringe copyright, you have infringed the copyright, not the AI.
- shh_labs 4mo ago
  Unless you are questioning the truthfulness of libraries, it is possible to definitively prove that prior art does exist
  - kube-system 4mo ago
    It can be pretty good evidence, but not everything written in a book is definitively true.
marking-time 4mo ago
You can definitely prove a human created something.