[HN Gopher] US Copyright Office refuses application with AI algo...
___________________________________________________________________
US Copyright Office refuses application with AI algorithm named as
author
Author : ilamont
Score : 210 points
Date : 2022-03-16 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ipkitten.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ipkitten.blogspot.com)
| paxys wrote:
| This is misleading. The copyright office simply needs the work to
| be registered under a human name, since a machine or AI cannot
| hold copyright. The process used to create it is irrelevant.
| ghaff wrote:
| This is essentially a stunt. If he used an AI to help him, even
| substantially help him, and copyrighted it himself, that would
| be a non-story. Just as it would be a non-story if he used
| Photoshop to substantially alter something.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Yes, this paradigm makes a lot of sense in the present
| moment. In a hypothetical future where there is a long-lived
| AI agent, acting autonomously over multiple years or even
| decades it will become less and less seen as a tool used by a
| human person. But, no need to update policies until then.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| But we already have multi-generational non-person entities:
| companies. Copyright may be assigned to companies instead
| of persons. They are just registered under a bunch of
| people's names, which act as owners (shareholders), and can
| change over time.
|
| In the future, AI entities will probably be registered as
| companies themselves (or maybe they will be just company
| assets), and will be owned by people. Which doesn't bode
| well for strong AI, but I suspect that even after we reach
| strong AI people will still grasp at straws for many
| decades or centuries, denying them personhood because they
| are just software that run on computers.
| dgreensp wrote:
| The amount of autonomy that makes something a "person" has
| only ever been drastically understated in these sorts of
| discussions, I find. Like saying a future self-driving taxi
| would own its own business and keep its profits. That's
| like giving a self-driving tractor the deed to the farm.
| It's easy to personify things that demonstrate some amount
| of "agency" (moving around on their own, making decisions),
| I guess, but lots of things do that and it doesn't make
| them legal people who can own property and the like. Even
| if it made sense to give a deed to a tractor, no one would
| do it.
| ineedasername wrote:
| You're making me regret my decision to setup my Roomba as
| the sole asset of a corporation owned by the Roomba
| itself. It seemed like the moral, ethical thing to do,
| but it doesn't even cash its paychecks.
| cupofpython wrote:
| >Even if it made sense to give a deed to a tractor, no
| one would do it.
|
| I mean... we both know people would if they could, right?
|
| If a tractor approaches me with a QR code to a smart
| contract that will give me enormous money in exchange for
| my deed.. I'm going to do it
| IncRnd wrote:
| Yea, in this analogy you already own the tractor, so you
| already own the tractor's money. I don't think I'm going
| on a limb by saying that isn't slavery. You already own
| the tractor and the money. There is no emancipation
| needed.
|
| If somebody else's tractor approached you with a smart
| contract, the owner of that tractor would have a case
| that the smart contract was not entered into in good
| faith, since a tractor cannot enter a contract at all.
| Maybe you'd even get charged with theft.
| TillE wrote:
| Where did the tractor get the money?
|
| I mean, people can probably give stuff to an "AI" the
| same way they leave stuff to their cats, but we are an
| absurdly long way off from developing an artificial
| intelligence with real agency. These are questions for
| science fiction authors, not actual legal scholars.
| ineedasername wrote:
| The legal and theoretical framework already exists
| somewhat for artificial entities in the form of corporate
| law and corporate personhood.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > If he used an AI to help him, even substantially help him,
| and copyrighted it himself, that would be a non-story.
|
| Maybe a subtler story, but I wouldn't say _no_ story. It 's
| still worth pondering how it works if a human can creatively
| develop an AI system that can then output essentially endless
| unique works. Can the human just submit applications for
| those works endlessly? Even in purely practical terms, will
| the copyright at some point just ban the human for excessive
| submissions?
|
| And what if the AI system is open source or otherwise freely
| available? Can any human generate a new unique work and
| submit a copyright application for it? Is the mere _curation_
| work that the human applies to the AI system 's output
| sufficient to receive a copyright on the work?
| tshaddox wrote:
| > If he used an AI to help him, even substantially help him,
| and copyrighted it himself, that would be a non-story.
|
| Maybe a subtler story, but I wouldn't say _no_ story. It 's
| still worth pondering how it works if a human can creatively
| develop an AI system that can then output essentially endless
| unique works. Can the human just submit applications for
| those works endlessly? Even in purely practical terms, will
| the copyright office at some point just ban the human for
| excessive submissions?
|
| And what if the AI system is open source or otherwise freely
| available? Can any human generate a new unique work and
| submit a copyright application for it? Is the mere _curation_
| work that the human applies to the AI system 's output
| sufficient to receive a copyright on the work?
| adolph wrote:
| Not just "humans," corporations are legal persons too for
| copyright purposes:
|
| https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/copyright-ownership-content...
| dingrot wrote:
| In what way is it misleading? That's exactly what I got from
| the headline and article.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| To me, "US Copyright Office won't accept AI-generated work"
| implies that work generated by AI won't be accepted.
|
| However, it turns out that work generated by AI will be
| accepted, albeit under a human name.
| kube-system wrote:
| But, that _is_ what they say:
|
| > [T]he Office will not register works produced by a
| machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly
| or automatically without any creative input or intervention
| from a human author.
|
| This is a clash between the marketing BS that is
| contemporary "AI" and reality. "AI" is either sentient, or
| it's a human tool. The copyright office is requiring that
| people cut the BS and concede that just because you have
| particularly complicated tool, doesn't mean it's not just a
| tool.
|
| It's like someone attempting to register a book copyright
| to a typewriter, the Copyright Office rolling their eyes,
| and responding: "Well, smart ass, if the typewriter wrote
| it, then it's ineligible."
| jjulius wrote:
| The phrase "requires 'human authorship'" suggests that a
| human must have authored the submission. In reality, AI could
| author the submission but a human would need to use their own
| name when submitting it.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Incorrect.
|
| A "machine generated work" is not considered copyrightable:
| _" The Office will not register works produced by a machine
| or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or
| automatically without any creative input or intervention
| from a human author. The crucial question is "whether the
| 'work' is basically one of human authorship, with the
| computer [or other device] merely being an assisting
| instrument, or whether the traditional elements of
| authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical
| expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.)
| were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a
| machine."_
| sneak wrote:
| AIs cannot yet author anything as they still require humans
| to execute the programs.
|
| AI software is just another tool. The human using it is
| still the creator of the work. Claiming otherwise is hype;
| we do not assign agency to software.
| roywiggins wrote:
| It's more that the owner needs to be a person, and
| software isn't one. But a corporation can register a
| copyright, because corporations are legal people, even
| though a human or humans created the work.
| kube-system wrote:
| It is not simply "you need to pick someone or some
| company". If the work was legitimately not created by a
| human, it _is_ ineligible for copyright. This is an
| important distinction.
|
| For example, you can't register a copyright for a
| naturally weathered rock in nature, and just say that
| it's a sculpture and I want to assign copyright to
| someone or some company.
|
| Now, if you put the rock there, to let it be weathered,
| then you _can_ copyright it. The distinction is that a
| human was involved in the creation, _not_ that you
| "picked" a human.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Likewise, only books written in secluded unpaid
| conditions count as legitimate writing. If a publication
| house is required to green-light or edit the project,
| it's obviously not real writing.
| natch wrote:
| Yes exactly... I think the idea is that "author" as a verb
| can have multiple word senses, one of which, the one in the
| sense of acting as the author-on-paper, would be in play
| here. And likewise "authorship" can have multiple senses,
| again in this case authorship-on-paper being the one in
| play.
|
| Of course one could ask, if this is allowed, what's to stop
| humans from claiming authorship for the work of other
| humans? I'd argue this already exists, in the form of
| ghostwriting, as just one example. Not saying it's good or
| bad -- it depends not the particulars of each case -- just
| saying, as an elaboration on all this, that the system
| already allows for it.
| subroutine wrote:
| Because the US Copyright Office _will_ accept AI-generated
| work.
| narrator wrote:
| Some person has to take responsibility for it in case their is
| some kind of fraud involved in the copyright claim. You can't
| just say no one is responsible because the computer did it all
| by itself.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I just read the article and surprisingly, you're wrong.
|
| Key quote: _" The Office will not register works produced by a
| machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or
| automatically without any creative input or intervention from a
| human author. The crucial question is "whether the 'work' is
| basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other
| device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the
| traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary,
| artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection,
| arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by
| man but by a machine."_
|
| Machine generated works cannot be copyrighted.
|
| Edit: and gee, did you get hn to rewrite the headline on the
| strength of your false claim? Sigh...
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| There is input from a human in the form of algorithmic
| programming and choice of training data
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Where the work in question would fall within the law is
| another question. But it's definite that the US Copyright
| Office won't copyright a work it considers machine
| generated, contrary to the gp's claim and the (apparently)
| rewritten headline. IE, the processed used is not
| irrelevant.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| I understand, but I disagree with the copyright office's
| decision. Why is there a distinction made between methods
| of creation, say if someone used Photoshop to create art
| vs someone who programmed some ML thing to spit out art
| of a certain style or genre (ie thisanimedoesnotexist)
|
| Where, exactly, does the line lie that was crossed?
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I'm not a fan of copyright generally and sure the line
| might seem arbitrary. But if you consider for second,
| just one of the problems with copyrighting machine-
| generated works is that a machine could generate so much
| text it make thing so any author would be bound to
| infringe on some part of it, especially if the text was
| generated cleverly.
|
| Plus: you've replied to some point other than what I
| actually said twice now, what's up with that?
| lr4444lr wrote:
| That input and training data isn't what's being
| copyrighted.
| [deleted]
| batch12 wrote:
| I wonder if one could invalidate an existing patent if they
| can make a case that it was the result of substantial
| contributions by ML algorithms.
| totony wrote:
| Thanks, saved me the read.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Computers don't have "rights". Period. The end.
| Victerius wrote:
| There is at least one potential future timeline where your
| comment is used by our robot overlords as an example of anti-
| synthetic sentiments that led to the droid revolution of 2121.
| [deleted]
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| It seems clear to me that modern "AI" Devices and algorithms are
| not "Persons". The copyright office would surely have accepted it
| if he had put down "Creativity Machine" as the /medium/, but the
| author is a legal person or persons (incl. pseudononymous
| persons, such as corporations [1]) . What would it mean to assign
| the copyright to "Creativity Machine"? It can't make any
| decisions or enter into binding legal contracts. Law is by and
| for persons, and there's been no movement to grant Personhood to
| the very limited constructs we're calling "AI" right now. I will
| be first in line to argue for Personhood for actual artificial
| intelligence, but this ain't it.
|
| [1] This is my personal pet peeve - "Corporate Personhood", like
| explored in "Citizens United", means that corporations are
| pseudononyms for a group of people, and if it would be legal an
| individual to do, it's legal for a corporation unless the law
| specifically prohibits it.
| bo1024 wrote:
| There's a really important distinction here.
|
| (a) An algorithm cannot be named as an author, name the human who
| ran it instead.
|
| (b) A work produced by an algorithm is *inherently not
| copyrightable*. You cannot name a human as author instead, that
| would be fraud if the work was produced by an algorithm.
|
| I am reading this as (b).
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| This is clearly the correct decision.
|
| If the AI is capable of creative intellectual thought, then his
| claim to own it is clearly false, because that's slavery, which
| is illegal.
|
| If it's not, then it's not really the author. The person who
| applied the AI is the author.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Thaler then requested a reconsideration of the decision,
| arguing that the human authorship requirement would be contrary
| to the US Constitution and be unsupported by either statute or
| case law.
|
| ... Feist v Rural? I know it's usually summarized as "sweat of
| the brow is not valid basis for copyright in the US", but it does
| this by arguing, as the head notes state:
|
| > Held: Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution
| mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection.
| The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation
| plus a modicum of creativity.
|
| It seems like a lot of the complaints here are against the
| reliance on 1800s-era cases, but it's the reality that even when
| modern copyright cases end up before SCOTUS, it all comes back to
| reaffirming those 1800s cases. (Baker v Seldon, 1880, featured
| heavily in Google v Oracle, decided 2021; similarly, Feist v
| Rural [1990] is basically going back and saying that the
| 1910s-era stuff makes the position clear).
| [deleted]
| gzer0 wrote:
| What's to prevent someone from claiming that it is "human
| authored" when in reality it was AI generated?
|
| As a test, I was able to generate 20 unique music tracks with AI,
| and submit them to Spotify, Apple Music, Shazam, Tidal + others
| and they are now "owned" by myself.
|
| This perhaps, will be the bigger problem going forward.
| Distinguishing between genuine authored content to that of AI
| generated.
| Gigachad wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with that because you claimed authorship
| of it and likely put your human skills to work checking which
| outputs were good.
|
| It's essentially the next step from tools like photoshop using
| ML to power edits.
| slim wrote:
| you're still the author
| mark-r wrote:
| I'm glad they're at least being consistent with prior decisions.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
| zeeb wrote:
| In Accelerando by Charles Stross, the fictional venture altruist
| Manfred Macx "...patented using genetic algorithms to patent
| everything they can permutate from an initial description of a
| problem domain - not just a better mousetrap, but the set of all
| possible mousetraps."
|
| Looks like we may not get the set of all possible mousetraps.
| _jal wrote:
| Mousetraps do not depend on patents to exist. You can still
| have your mousetrap set, you just can't prevent others from re-
| deriving the same set.
| Verdex wrote:
| The comment you are replying to was using mousetraps as a
| metaphor. ...at the end of the actual description of what it
| was talking about. It's an executive summary, not literally
| talking about mouse traps.
|
| Specifically it was talking about arbitrary problem domains.
| So ... much more than mousetraps.
| _jal wrote:
| What makes you think this was unclear?
| excalibur wrote:
| If the authors have to be human then so do the owners. Be
| consistent dammit.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| AI is a tool like a camera, point it a thing and push go.
|
| Each has billions of dollars of global supply chain supporting
| their manifestation.
| j2bax wrote:
| Aaaa! We got 'em! If AI can't copyright itself, then it won't be
| allowed to take over or destroy the world (as long as a human
| and/or patent troll copyrights world domination first). One small
| victory for mankind!
| LegitShady wrote:
| Good. I imagine if it was any other way we'd just have a trillion
| machine learning models making stupid things for the IP ownership
| and a round of copyright trolling by their operators.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Given that the fee appears to be $45 per work to register the
| copyright, I'm having a hard time seeing a good business model
| here.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| So the AI has some side jobs on Fiverr
| LegitShady wrote:
| How long is a book? How much text can I copyright for $45 and
| then go after people over "excerpts"?
|
| I'm not sure but I can see how such a system can be gamed
| shagie wrote:
| You can file multiple works as one collective work -
| https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf
| nnvvhh wrote:
| Copyright exists upon creation, registration is required to
| sue. They don't need to register them all.
| neallindsay wrote:
| Registration is not required to sue, but definitely makes
| it easier.
| VectorLock wrote:
| Hopefully nobody gets the idea to use AI-generated patent
| applications just to get your name on a patent, and sell that as
| a service. That would be very unfair to our patent clerks and a
| serious drain on our current patent system.
| cwkoss wrote:
| good
| snek_case wrote:
| This seems like a good thing to me, because with "AI-generated
| works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of
| images and essentially try to pre-copyright a lot of content, so
| you can then sue people who produce legitimate works that
| somewhat resemble what you've already copyrighted. Something
| similar could be done with programming code and transformers.
|
| We already have a problem with copyright lasting long after the
| original author(s) are dead...
| Teever wrote:
| This seems like a bad thing to me, because with "AI-generated
| works", there's the potential to generate a massive amount of
| images and essentially try to pre-copyleft a lot of content, so
| you could sleep easy knowing that it was no longer possible to
| sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat resemble
| what you've already copyrighted. Something similar could be
| done with programming code and transformers.
|
| We already have a problem with copyright lasting long after the
| original author(s) are dead...
| [deleted]
| charcircuit wrote:
| >then sue people who produce legitimate works that somewhat
| resemble what you've already copyrighted.
|
| If people didn't _copy_ your work, but instead created it
| themself you can 't (read shouldn't be able to) sue them.
| Copyright law protects people from making copies of your work.
| If someone didn't copy from you copyright law doesn't apply.
| staticman2 wrote:
| I just posted the same thing, but good luck proving a
| negetive. (That you never viewed a certain work publically
| available on a certain web site.)
|
| That's certainly a difficulty that could cause you to settle
| with a bad actor.
| charcircuit wrote:
| If someone is doing a meme of copyrighting everything I
| don't think it would be hard to see through what's going
| on.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Technically you need to copy to infringe copyright, so if I had
| never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by
| pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's
| copyright.
|
| The issue is one of credibility. Nobody would believe me if I
| said I had cooincidentally recreated Nowhere Man but with a
| randomly generated library perhaps you could credibly show it
| was a coincidence.
|
| That said people could be intimidated by legal fees and the
| possibility of losing and settle with a bad actor running this
| sort of scam.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and
| recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have
| infringed the Beatles's copyright.
|
| You would need to prove that you had never heard it. This is
| non-trivial.
|
| Most recent high-profile music copyright cases do not center
| on precise reproductions, but on music that "contains
| elements of" another piece of music.
| greiskul wrote:
| Yes, but with existing music, current lawsuits use the fact
| that the music under dispute was playing on radios,
| nightclubs, tv, etc. So there is the possibility of the
| other artist having heard of it. If the music is stuck
| inside of a gigantic database that nobody has accessed, it
| becomes much easier to prove that you in fact never heard
| it.
| nnvvhh wrote:
| You're mistaken about who has the burden to prove actual
| copying. The person alleging infringement has to show that
| the defendant copied the work.
| djur wrote:
| The standard in a US civil trial is preponderance of
| evidence, though, so all you have to do is convince the
| judge that it is more likely than not that the defendant
| copied the work.
| autoexec wrote:
| Maybe in the courts, but you can get your youtube channel
| shutdown or even be permanently kicked off your ISP (and
| the internet, unless you have more than one option) based
| on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations that you've
| violated copyright
| hedora wrote:
| True, but then it doesn't matter if you produced any
| content or not.
| slingnow wrote:
| Actually this is logically impossible, since you can't
| prove a negative.
| autoexec wrote:
| I agree that for now this is a good idea, but once the robots
| can ask for it, this is going to have to change. Hopefully by
| the time we're working on securing rights for bots we'll have
| long fixed our broken copyright system so that it once again
| provides limited protections for creators and isn't just a
| perpetual revenue stream generator for corporations.
| odsb wrote:
| Can you not programmatically claim "Human Ownership", like as
| long as you don't have to be physically present I think you can
| still achieve what you are saying.
|
| I guess what is really "human ownership", maybe i will have to
| read the article :)
| hedora wrote:
| I'd copyright all natural numbers if they'd let me.
|
| The system is clearly rigged!
| odsb wrote:
| This doesn't make sense. You can make a AI generated work and
| claim it to be Human.
| moralestapia wrote:
| It makes perfect sense.
|
| >You can make a AI generated work and claim it to be Human.
|
| That's the point!
| gjvnq wrote:
| That sounds like perjury.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| No more than a photographer claiming authorship for simply
| pushing a button on his art-generating machine.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| From Russell and Norvig, a famous story about difficulty in
| publishing with probably the first such AI-generated work:
|
| "Two researchers from Carnegie Tech, Allen Newell and Herbert
| Simon, rather stole the show [at the original Dartmouth AI
| Conference]. Although the others had ideas and in some cases
| programs for particular applications such as checkers, Newell and
| Simon already had a reasoning program, the Logic Theorist
| (LT).... Soon after the workshop, the program was able to prove
| most of the theorems in Chapter 2 of Russell and Whitehead's
| _Principia Mathematica._ Russell was reportedly delighted when
| Simon showed him that the program had come up with a proof for
| one theorem that was shorter than the one in _Principia._ The
| editors for the _Journal of Symbolic Logic_ were less impressed:
| they rejected a paper coauthored by Newell, Simon, and Logic
| Theorist. "
| digitcatphd wrote:
| Year 2050: AI Copyright office system won't accept Human-
| generated art, requires "AI authorship"
| simiones wrote:
| This is excellent, a future where you could use algorithms to
| generate works of art and profit massively by selling them would
| be even worse for artists than today's art/entertainment world.
|
| Unfortunately it's not clear to me whether this is a ruling that
| a work created using an algorithm can't be copyrighted (which
| would be ideal) or if it's just about not listing the algorithm
| as the "author", which is so obvious it's incredible someone
| actually spent money trying to litigate it.
| echelon wrote:
| > profit massively by selling them
|
| You don't need copyright to sell them.
|
| In the future, media will move faster than copyright. I imagine
| telling a machine, "make me a new Star Wars film, but with
| dragons", and out streams the result.
|
| The future isn't going to fit our existing laws or paradigms
| very well. The laws were written for a different time with
| totally different expectations.
| Verdex wrote:
| Yeah. With the pie in the sky being, "make me star wars but
| with dragons and double check all copyright infringement
| cases involving star wars to make sure the end result is
| unlikely to infringe."
|
| Edit. Or heck if the input parameters are really as easy as
| "star wars and dragons" then you just distribute the
| generator and the input params.
| echelon wrote:
| Except the very idea of a "franchise" will also come under
| attack when computers can develop narrative, character
| development, plot devices, world build, etc.
|
| Nobody will want Star Wars when a computer can make Galaxy
| Dragons and turn it into an epic 100 episode saga. Like
| your Count Dooku memes? Wait until you hear about Lord
| Drago Starstream.
|
| And if the concept of a computer developing all of this
| still seems as far off as "Level 5 autonomous driving",
| note that with media there will be lots of intermediate
| steps with humans still in the loop. Just give humans knobs
| and dials and a "reset" button. Plot the story on a graph,
| drag the nodes. Nobody dies with this. Human editors can
| control for quality. There's plenty of automation
| opportunity until computers become outright storytellers.
|
| Disney and their IP war chest are gonna be toast.
| Verdex wrote:
| I've been hoping for exactly what you're describing for
| several years now.
|
| Personally I want Xenomorph protagonist remake genre.
| Basically a genre where you take a movie and remake it
| with the protagonist being a xenomorph that the rest of
| the cast is only vaguely aware of as being a xenomorph.
|
| So xenomorph renegade police detective movie where the
| detective is a xenomorph who gets kicked off the case,
| slams his badge onto the cheifs desk, skitters into a
| vent, and then proceeds to eat the bad guys. All while
| the other policemen comment about how xenomorph cop is
| reckless and plays by his own rules.
| echelon wrote:
| I love it! I'd totally watch that. (Kindergarten Cop with
| Xenomorphs? Heck yeah!)
|
| This is my dream too. I'm working on it right now!
|
| It's not perfect at the outset, but I've got a 10 year
| plan to make every step functional, increasingly
| monetizable, increasingly professional, and will work my
| way up the capability ladder one rung at a time.
|
| I'd love to hear from other engineers interested in
| media, storytelling, graphics, etc. (My email is in my
| profile.)
| tablespoon wrote:
| > In the future, media will move faster than copyright. I
| imagine telling a machine, "make me a new Star Wars film, but
| with dragons", and out streams the result.
|
| That sounds like a dystopia of stagnation and solipsism.
| Imagine each person becoming a super-fan their own Marvel
| Cinematic Universe(tm) that's both utterly derivative and
| incapable of being a point of connection with others.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| "Siri, make me a new self insert! But base this one off
| Indiana Jones!"
| echelon wrote:
| Take a look at TikTok and YouTube. There are so many people
| creating content for _others_.
|
| I've no doubt that people will do exactly what you claim
| and become more absorbed in themselves, but I think the
| positive use and upside are vastly going to outweigh the
| gloomy narrative you've laid out.
|
| This technology is going to bring about an artistic
| Renaissance and people will have more ways to express
| themselves and employ themselves and do the things that
| they want with their lives.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >>> In the future, media will move faster than copyright.
| I imagine telling a machine, "make me a new Star Wars
| film, but with dragons", and out streams the result.
|
| >> That sounds like a dystopia of stagnation and
| solipsism. Imagine each person becoming a super-fan their
| own Marvel Cinematic Universe(tm) that's both utterly
| derivative and incapable of being a point of connection
| with others.
|
| > Take a look at TikTok and YouTube. There are so many
| people creating content for others.
|
| But those people are creating "content" _themselves_ ,
| they're not asking a competent machine to do it entirely
| for them. That's such a big difference that they're not
| even remotely the same kind of activity.
|
| > This technology is going to bring about an artistic
| Renaissance and people will have more ways to express
| themselves and employ themselves and do the things that
| they want with their lives.
|
| You seem to be talking about something entirely different
| than what you wrote about in your original comment. That
| comment described the _machine_ doing the expressing, on
| demand, with minimal user input.
| echelon wrote:
| > That comment described the machine doing the
| expressing, on demand, with minimal user input.
|
| I only gave the machine two inputs. I don't think I'd
| stop there. I might in fact spend a lot of time with such
| a technology exploring all of the nooks and crannies of
| creation space.
|
| We're not going to arrive at the "tell the computer what"
| fully declarative tech immediately. There's a path from
| here to there that still requires human involvement, just
| less of it spent on the mundane minutiae. Once we reach
| that point, we won't rest on our laurels.
|
| Just as someone might tweak the directed graph of a plot
| and serialize it to text today, I'd expect them to have
| their hands in the "less hands on" systems of the future
| too. They just won't be drafting and editing prose.
| That'll be old school.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's neither of those. The copyright office is simply refusing
| to make a judgement about whether anyone actually believes
| their AI is a sentient being. Not only is that not their
| expertise, it is not something they have to decide under
| copyright law.
|
| The law is simple, if a human wasn't involved in creating the
| work, then it's ineligible. Bear in mind, a human pressing a
| single button on a camera _does_ count as human generated work,
| because it plainly is.
|
| The TL;DR from the copyright office is basically:
|
| "Did that fancy tool _really_ make that work all by itself?...
| or did _you_ use a really fancy tool? "
| karaterobot wrote:
| > [T]he Office will not register works produced by a machine or
| mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically
| without any creative input or intervention from a human author.
| The crucial question is "whether the 'work' is basically one of
| human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely
| being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional
| elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or
| musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.)
| were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a
| machine." U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF
| CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966).
|
| This is probably the right call, though it will become
| increasingly urgent in the future to evolve the rules to consider
| the nuances of new cases that will certainly arise.
| exdsq wrote:
| I've been using GPT-3 to generate pornography scripts involving
| unpopular politicians and it has to write some of the funniest
| stuff I've ever read. Nigel Farage was randomly a goat in one of
| them, but still leader of UKIP. Osama Bin Laden is almost always
| hiding in a cave and, in a multiple person love story with
| European leaders, will almost always fall in love with Putin over
| the others.
|
| In fact one thing I noticed is Putin's always the dominant
| partner and will travel to the country of the other, such as Kim
| Jong-Un, while others are much more passive.
|
| Boris Johnson always cuddles afterwards too - in every generation
| his always ends with a happy romance.
| RobertMiller wrote:
| That's a small step in the right direction. Reducing the
| protection period to something sane would be nice too, but that's
| probably hoping for too much.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| What if we could prove certain software patents were actually the
| work of AI
| rsstack wrote:
| How does this affect GitHub Copilot? They used to claim that
| their AI can create new IP and transfer it to the users.
| jhncls wrote:
| There is also the story of "Shalosh B. Ekhad", the computer who
| co-authored many papers in combinatorics.
|
| [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Shalosh+B.+Ekhad%22
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Zeilberger [2]
| https://www.wired.com/2013/03/computers-and-math/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-16 23:00 UTC)