Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SkaldCrypto t1_j65afmn wrote

Reply to comment by DazedWithCoffee in ChatGPT can’t be credited as an author, says world’s largest academic publisher (26 Jan. 2023) by marketrent

Agreed we should also strip all mechanical engineering patents since they used calculators and CAD has machine learning components since 2016.

1

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)

1

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.

1

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

3