your auntifa liza đŸ‡”đŸ‡· 🩛 🩩Mar 2

so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.

#SCOTUS won't review these rules because copyright is meant to protect human creations, not software or automata.

this may mean #AWSlop #Microslop are “de-copyrighting” & “de-patenting” their own proprietary software as they let automata “code” 🧐

❝ AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule
https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright

AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted after Supreme Court declines to review the rule

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case over whether AI-generated art can be copyrighted.

The Verge
Show threadEl DuvelleMar 2
@blogdiva that's silly, it's like saying something written by a typewriter is not copyright-able because it was made by a machine.. The "AI" program was made by a human in the first place, it's just slightly more sophisticated..
Show threadDave Rahardja

@elduvelle @blogdiva When you copyright a book, you’re not copyrighting the output of your typewriter; you’re copyrighting your work.

The AI program can be copyrighted. Its output can’t.

It’s pretty consistent.

Mar 2 at 9:16pmWeb
Show threadEl DuvelleMar 2

@drahardja Hmmm.. not sure.. but this made me think more about it: say, the typewriter is actually changing the inputted letters a bit, for example it's changing some of the Ts into Ss and maybe the author notices it and likes the output, or not, but in any case they want to copyright the resulting book (with the "typos"). That would be valid, right?

Now, isn't the output of an LLM a combination of its inputs (prompt) and its internal machinery (transforming the inputs)? So why can't the output be copyrighted?

Edit: we should probably also consider the training set as part of the inputs, but I still don't think the output can't be copyrighted. However, who would benefit from the copyright is a good question, probably all the authors of the work that went into the training set + the person who wrote the code of the LLM + the person who wrote the prompt..

Show threadDave RahardjaMar 2

@elduvelle

EDIT: As @LeslieBurns says below, this is INCORRECT.

I’m not a lawyer. But intuitively, as the SCOTUS implies, copyright protects the work of humans. When writing a prompt to generate art, a machine is performing the vast majority of the transformation from the billions of works it ingested, not the human. Granted, *how much* human work needs to happen for something to be “transformative” (and thus grant the person a copyright) has been a subject of debate for decades, but generative AI is nowhere close to that threshold IMO.

Show threadEl DuvelleMar 2

@drahardja
I agree to some extent, and I'm also not a lawyer, but instead of saying that the output of a LLM can't be copyrighted, I think it would mean that the question is who should benefit from the copyright (or patent). Certainly not just the person who entered the prompt. Instead it would be more like a group work: all of those who contributed to any of the LLM's inputs: all the authors of the stolen work + the person who programmed the LLM + the person who prompted the LLM. The machine itself is not doing any work - just following instructions, like my typewriter, but in a more complex manner.

(Edited my previous post to add this)

It's definitely interesting to think about it!