[edulix]

1. At what point an intelligence trained with copyrighted work is derivative work of the trained materials?

2. Why making a difference between AI and HI (Human Intelligence)?

3. Given the fast development in the field, when does the difference made above (if any) start being outdated and unrealistic and how do we future-proof against this?

[IanCal]

> 2. Why making a difference between AI and HI (Human Intelligence)?

Regardless of perhaps more philosophical differences around whether something can or can't create something new, there's a practical difference.

Humans learn slowly, and can't be replicated. AIs can be trained once and used in a billion places. The speed and replication makes things different in a very practical sense, even if there's no clear line between them.

[JoshTriplett]

> 2. Why making a difference between AI and HI (Human Intelligence)?

Because you can't copyright a human brain, and because humans (unlike machines) can themselves create works subject to copyright.

[hfkwer]

What's the difference between using a pencil to write something and using an LLM to write something? Seriously, I'm asking the question. Why does one produce something copyrighted why the other doesn't?

[banana_feather]

The copyright office has issued guidance on this which contains a very thorough and thoughtful legal analysis; you would probably be most interested section 3: https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

The practical answer is that the copyright office refuses to register AI generated works, and you can't sue for copyright infringement without valid registration under Title 17.

[JoshTriplett]

> What's the difference between using a pencil to write something and using an LLM to write something?

The pencil is not a derivative work of a pile of copyrighted material.

> Why does one produce something copyrighted why the other doesn't?

There's existing case law that non-human entities (e.g. animals) can't create copyrightable works. And in the case of an AI LLM, the AI LLM itself is a derivative work of its training data (as evidenced by the fact that it can by default spit out training data verbatim, even if it has had after-the-fact filters added to prevent such responses).

[edulix]

At what point you can't copyright an "AI brain" either? Maybe AI will at some point create works subject to copyright?

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

Re: 1, As far as i can tell it’s automatically a derivative work, but there’s a case to be made that it’s fair use (i.e. it doesn’t matter that it’s a derivative work).

[snodnipper]

agreed...at what point should I provide remuneration to my professors? Should those professors / staff provide royalties upstream? I fully agreed with citation _but_ to claim that AI is derived work / needs to return royalties based on the materials it learnt from seems a step too far IMHO. It read material and put it back like everyone else.

[eviks]

2. Because they are different