[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)