AI doesn't read or write like humans, and we shouldn't act like it does.
agrobertson.substack.com
We shouldn’t be affording companies the ability to profit off other people’s creations without their consent, and despite the intentions, that's basically how current copyright law works.

A long form response to the concerns and comments and general principles many people had in the post about authors suing companies creating LLMs.

  • @RivalarrivalEnglish
    17•1 year ago

    US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright

    Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here, Silverman is the only one making a copyright claim. ChatGPT is not claiming a copyright on its output.

    It’d be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence.

    I disagree. Nothing about “fair use” requires that the work be copyrighted on its own, or even copyrightable. It simply can’t be subject to the original copyright.

    A summary is a “transformative derivation”. Even if that summary cannot be copyrighted on its for some reason, it is not subject to the copyright of the original work.