DazedWithCoffee t1_j5za15n wrote
Of course not, copyright is a human invention for humans to monetize human effort. If we don’t allow monkeys to own copyright, then AI is not eligible. This is not even a real question. If they can’t own the copyright, then how can they be credited as an author? Many people on r/singularity will argue, but this isn’t any more human than my first “hello world” in Python
3_layers_deep t1_j61yal2 wrote
This isn't just about copyrights, but about whether its plagiarism to use ChatGPT written work.
quantumfucker t1_j62vcot wrote
These are two distinct issues people keep mixing. AI does not have human sentience, and it cannot have the rights to anything. This is very different than the issue of whether AI is plagiarism.
3_layers_deep t1_j63xh33 wrote
This isn't about rights though. Its about whether ChatGPT can be credited as an author. If it can't be credited, then you can't plagiarize it.
SkaldCrypto t1_j65afmn wrote
Agreed we should also strip all mechanical engineering patents since they used calculators and CAD has machine learning components since 2016.
DazedWithCoffee t1_j65aosr wrote
Not really comparable, also patents are not copyright in the slightest. Copyright specifically applies to creative works. (Not limited to, just geared towards, I should say)
SkaldCrypto t1_j65h8ti wrote
Also all photos edited in photoshop or lightroom since their ML additions in 2018.
Also all written works edited in Google sheets, with grammarly, or Microsoft Word.
All songs edited with auto-tune post 2019.
My point is where is the line? If any ML or ai assistance makes it derivative then I have some bad news for basically everyone. Time to get out the typewriters.
DazedWithCoffee t1_j65iim2 wrote
Your argument is that of a straw man, it does not actually address the issue at hand. They are not composing a message in the way that generative algorithms like those we have now can, out of whole cloth. I would also argue that one could not copyright the autocorrect strings on iOS, see below for an example:
“Okay dear I just don’t think you know how to do anything for me to be able and to be honest with you lol”
This is just me selecting words that apple has determine are likely to be used together. There is no agency to it, and I would argue that, given the legal precedents at play, are not copyright eligible. Grammarly for example recognizes grammatical patterns, based on rules of language that are defined (as much as any language can be said to have rules) and suggests more technically correct ways to say what is being supplied by the author. There is still an author, however, with editorial control over the content, which they generate out of whole cloth and supply to the algorithm
EOE97 t1_j5zqtbr wrote
Hypothetically speaking, AIs on the order of/far surpassing human intelligence should be able to hold copyrighted works... No?
DazedWithCoffee t1_j5zwzl4 wrote
That’s a big question. If AI grows to that point, then we will need to reckon with that. I wish I could say, that’s a philosophical question that will garner many opinions
Caspi7 t1_j60b64y wrote
What is the point of a piece of software owning anything. It's software, running on a server somewhere. If anything the copyright could go to the owner of the software i.e. OpenAI.
EOE97 t1_j60qqm5 wrote
Well, maybe the software wants equal rights or some type of rights.
Caspi7 t1_j60yn3j wrote
It's software, you can can disable it with a click of a button. If it wants "equal rights" it's just a copy pasta from something it has read. It doesn't think, it recognizes patterns and responds to that in a way it has "learned" to do so.
kranta11 t1_j621sgk wrote
It's software, you can can disable it with a click of a button.
Still. Maybe you wouldn’t be able to tomorrow. Sincerely, Skynet.
Caspi7 t1_j62r7ij wrote
As long as it runs on a machine you can pull the plug. Unless there is some robot stopping you there isn't any way for ai to take over the world or something.
AloserwithanISP2 t1_j61lrwj wrote
It literally does exactly what it’s told to. It’s not conscious and it can’t think.
EOE97 t1_j62roct wrote
If it is sentient you can't really prove that or disprove that.
AloserwithanISP2 t1_j63j0ba wrote
We made it, we know exactly what it does, it’s not sentient
EOE97 t1_j63tzl6 wrote
Lol, sure. We have deep neural networks and admittedly can't even tell what most of the neural connection do referring to it as a black box. Just because we made it doesn't necessarily mean we know every thing about it
And even if we can somwhow know everything about the AIs we created, super Advanced AI (ASI) may not even be made entirely by human programmers, meaning much more gaps in our knowledge.
AloserwithanISP2 t1_j660paa wrote
We can literally prevent a bot from writing prompts we don’t want it to. It’s not an incomprehensible life form it’s a piece of code.
AdLeading3217 t1_j62p4rm wrote
I think it gets to call the shots at that point.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments