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.
Comment on Music Publishers Sue Amazon-backed AI Platform for Copyright Infringement
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 year agoDoesn’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.
Saganastic@kbin.social 1 year ago
nybble41@programming.dev 1 year ago
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.
ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 year ago
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.
ericisshort@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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).