←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 3 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.597s | source
Show context
prvc ◴[12 May 25 12:28 UTC] No.43962193[source]▶
The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.
replies(4): >>43962324 #>>43962424 #>>43962648 #>>43962893 #
bgwalter ◴[12 May 25 12:59 UTC] No.43962424[source]▶
The required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.

If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright.

Only large corporations get away with it.

replies(9): >>43962554 #>>43962560 #>>43962638 #>>43962665 #>>43962744 #>>43962820 #>>43963108 #>>43963228 #>>43963944 #
scraptor ◴[12 May 25 13:15 UTC] No.43962554[source]▶
Plagiarism is not an issue of copyright law, it's an entirely separate system of rules maintained by academia. The US Copyright Office has no business having opinions about it. If a AI^W human reads 100 papers and then churns out a new one this is usually called research.
replies(5): >>43962756 #>>43962757 #>>43963247 #>>43963863 #>>43966801 #
dfxm12 ◴[12 May 25 13:38 UTC] No.43962757[source]▶
Please argue in good faith. A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".
replies(2): >>43962849 #>>43962855 #
int_19h ◴[12 May 25 13:47 UTC] No.43962855[source]▶
"Rearranging text" is not what modern LLMs do though, unless you specifically ask them to.
replies(1): >>43963842 #
1. dfxm12 ◴[12 May 25 15:02 UTC] No.43963842[source]▶
I didn't make this claim. Feel free to bring a cogent argument to a commenter who did.
replies(1): >>43965264 #
2. gruez ◴[12 May 25 17:10 UTC] No.43965264[source]▶
>I didn't make this claim

???

Did you not literally comment the following?

>A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".

What did you mean by that, if that's not your claim?

replies(1): >>43965763 #
3. dfxm12 ◴[12 May 25 17:54 UTC] No.43965763[source]▶
I made that comment, but the bit in quotes is not my claim. I was quoting a grandparent post. If you read from the top, the quotation marks and general flow of the thread should make this clear.