4 ms·
That's an intriguing twist, isn't it? It could lead to a tug-of-war. Working backwards: if it is possible to confirm 100% confidence that a chunk of text is LL
by ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
That's an intriguing twist, isn't it? It could lead to a tug-of-war.
Working backwards: if it is possible to confirm 100% confidence that a chunk of text is LLM output, then it is "PD until proven otherwise". How can a human reliably assert human authorship of their source text? When all watermark tests fail? Is that proof of humanity now?
If a human proves human authorship, and LLM watermarking tests positive, then is that going to be considered a "derivative work" or not? What if there is an applicable license for the source work, such as "CC-BY-ND" that prohibits derivative works?
This has not been court-tested, and I expect that it will need testing at that level before we can have any assurances.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 2mo agoThe watermark, if I'm understanding correctly, only proves that something has been touched at some point by a particular model, not that it was entirely generated by a particular model. As for it being "uncopyrightable" if it were the output of an LLM, I think computer people are making a very aspie interpretation of a single decision. I think it's more that the LLM (and thereby its owners) cannot itself hold a copyright on its output, that output has to be touched by a person before it is copyrightable. A particular view from the top of a mountain can't be copyrighted, for example, but a photograph of that view can be. I'm not sure it at all precludes a "robosigning"* sort of situation, where machines generate output, hired temps sign and claim that output, and immediately sign it over to the people who hired them (as a work-for-hire.) Copyright is stupid, artificial law, not logical. ----- * https://www.mortgageauditsonline.com/what-are-robo-signers/ https://www.mortgageauditsonline.com/what-are-robo-signers/
- demibabs 2mo ago> The watermark, if I'm understanding correctly, only proves that something has been touched at some point by a particular model, not that it was entirely generated by a particular model. For the watermark to be detectable, the text needs to be like 75% AI generated. If you have an LLM “touch” one section of the article, it’s not gonna be detectable.
- inigyou 2mo agoHow do you assert it now? I post some text on the internet, you claim you have copyright, how do you prove that?
- pizzly 2mo agoSome camera pointing at you while you work. Guessing the camera needs to be watermarked itself, which can be done by adding some watermark on the chip level (each camera will have different watermark), manufacturer can confirm the watermark.
- inigyou 2mo agoIs that realistically how that is proven in court today?
- summarybot 2mo agoCopyright law was updated in a very helpful way in the last twenty years sometime so that as soon as you post something to the internet you have copyright. If you need a citation don't hesitate to ask someone else.
- inigyou 2mo agoSo you can just say some text is copyright to you and it is? Here is some text that is copyright to me. As you infringed my copyright, please pay my $5000 license fee for every user who has read it: > Copyright law was updated in a very helpful way in the last twenty years sometime so that as soon as you post something to the internet you have copyright. If you need a citation don't hesitate to ask someone else.
- summarybot 2mo agoRather casuistic take, there.
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]