your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦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 threadJayMar 2
@elduvelle @blogdiva if a typewriter were mashing up the writing from great novels written on other typewriters across time & space
Show threadEl DuvelleMar 2

@jaystephens
Right.. But a typewriter wouldn't do anything on its own, just like a LLM wouldn't do anything on its own, without a human telling it what to do. Both need input from the human and they transform this input into something else. The difference is the LLM got some preprogrammed input (indeed, some of it part of its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc.) as well as the current input, provided by the human prompt.

The LLM is not anything like an independent entity creating anything.. it's just some code doing what it's programmed to do

Show threadJayMar 2
@elduvelle
"its training set which is a mash up from actual people's novels, etc" is the key point.
The output cannot be considered only the result of the prompt, which was the only work done by the user.
Show threadEl DuvelleMar 2

@jaystephens

Definitely, see my other answer here
https://neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/116161779140284723

In the end I'd say the question is "who should benefit from the copyright", not whether the LLM's output is copyrightable or not, because I don't see why it wouldn't be. Obviously it's not going to be easy to figure it out, but in theory all those who contributed to the output (including in the training set) should be considered as contributors. The LLM itself, like a typewriter, is not a contributor.

El Duvelle (@[email protected])

@[email protected] 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!

neurospace.live
Show threadPete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫Mar 3

@elduvelle @jaystephens
Your continuing not to see why LLM output can't be copyrightable is neither here nor there. It can't. The part written by the human is the prompt itself. You could copyright that, sure. It just isn't useful.

If you could get a court to agree copyright went to all human contributors of the training data, then *nobody* could benefit from it, as nobody would have a right to make copies of it without *all* the contributors or their estates granting a license.

Show threadEl Duvelle

@petealexharris yeah, obviously the fact that the LLM's output comes from untraceable and sometimes stolen data is a problem.
My main point is that the SCOTUS considering that the output of an LLM is somehow the "creation" of software, instead of considering it the creation of a group of humans, is silly and wrong. It's as if they fell in the trap of considering as a separate entity as if it was some kind of actual artificial intelligence.. which it really is not.

Software doesn't "create" anything, and the output of a software like photoshop is not different from the output of software like a LLM, it's still created by humans in the first place. The only difference is that we can't easily track the origin of the LLM's output.

@jaystephens

Mar 3 at 12:39pmWeb
Show threadPete Alex Harris🦡🕸️🌲/∞🪐∫Mar 3
@elduvelle @jaystephens
If you can't track from the creative input of the human to the output, there's no provenance to attach ownership to. If you can identify that it contains unlicensed copyrightable material then it's infringing. Obviously you can't assert copyright on someone else's work, and if it's a mix, nobody can. The courts know it's a mess, and I suspect are refusing to make it worse.