Doesn’t this argument assume that AI are human? That’s a pretty huge reach if you ask me. It’s not even clear if LLM are AI, nevermind giving them human rights.
No, I’m not assuming that. It’s not about concluding AI’s are human. It’s about having concrete standards on which to design laws. Setting a lower standard for copyright violation by LLMs would be like setting a lower speed limit for a self-driving car, and I don’t think it makes any logical sense. To me that would be a disappointingly protectionist and luddite perspective to apply to this new technology.
If LLM are software then they can’t commit copyright violation, the onus for breaking laws falls on the people who use them. And until someone proves otherwise in a court of law they are software.
No one is saying we charge a piece of software with a crime. Corporations aren’t human, but they can absolutely be charged with copyright violations, so being human isn’t a requirement for this at all.
Depending on the situation, you would either charge the user of the software (if they directed the software to violate copyright) and/or the company that makes the software (if they negligently release an LLM that has been proven to produce results that violate copyright).
Machine learning falls under the category of AI. I agree that works produced by LLMs should count as derivative works, as long as they’re not too similar.
Not every work produced by a LLM should count as a derivative work—just the ones that embody unique, identifiable creative elements from specific work(s) in the training set. We don’t consider every work produced by a human to be a derivative work of everything they were trained on; work produced by (a human using) an AI should be no different.
Doesn’t this argument assume that AI are human? That’s a pretty huge reach if you ask me. It’s not even clear if LLM are AI, nevermind giving them human rights.
No, I’m not assuming that. It’s not about concluding AI’s are human. It’s about having concrete standards on which to design laws. Setting a lower standard for copyright violation by LLMs would be like setting a lower speed limit for a self-driving car, and I don’t think it makes any logical sense. To me that would be a disappointingly protectionist and luddite perspective to apply to this new technology.
If LLM are software then they can’t commit copyright violation, the onus for breaking laws falls on the people who use them. And until someone proves otherwise in a court of law they are software.
No one is saying we charge a piece of software with a crime. Corporations aren’t human, but they can absolutely be charged with copyright violations, so being human isn’t a requirement for this at all.
Depending on the situation, you would either charge the user of the software (if they directed the software to violate copyright) and/or the company that makes the software (if they negligently release an LLM that has been proven to produce results that violate copyright).
Machine learning falls under the category of AI. I agree that works produced by LLMs should count as derivative works, as long as they’re not too similar.
Not every work produced by a LLM should count as a derivative work—just the ones that embody unique, identifiable creative elements from specific work(s) in the training set. We don’t consider every work produced by a human to be a derivative work of everything they were trained on; work produced by (a human using) an AI should be no different.
deleted by creator