[hnfong]

By your argument, writing summaries of books, "explain <book> in 3 minutes" youtube videos, and commentaries on books should be made illegal too.

Or more precisely, they should be made illegal if and only if they achieve "scale" of maybe at least a couple million viewers.

The fundamental premise of copyright is flawed. Taking medieval concepts involving censorship of the printing press and extending them to the 21st century is bound to produce awkward results. I'm not hopeful that copyrights will be reconsidered from the ground up during this AI shock, but at least we shouldn't pretend that any arguments about copyrights should be reasonable and make sense. I honestly believe a "realpolitik" approach is more helpful, at least we know that those with more political influence and spend more effort lobbying will probably "win" in the end...

[nimski]

I appreciate the example, but here's where I think it differs as an analogy of what LLMs do:

A summary doesn't have infinite or variable depth. If you read the summary of a non-fiction (I'll limit my argument to that, as another poster pointed out) book, and either aren't convinced, or want to learn more about the matter, you'd have to purchase the book.

An LLM that has ben trained on the book, if somehow designed not to hallucinate, would be able to answer any question you have about the book at any depth, seamlessly blending in material from other books to answer a question or explain a concept. That seems like an entirely better experience than reading the book from start-to-finish. I don't see how the original can compete.

[__loam]

LLMs will never be able to not hallucinate. Also, it's insane to me that people like you would prefer to ask a chatbot about a book rather than read the book itself. Part of the value of books is the voice of an author.

[passion__desire]

This is a very basic and naive, poor scenario. Words are in public domain. But somehow their arrangements makes all the difference. Can AI just solve this "arrangement" problem better than humans do. Arrangements can be liked to series of moves in chess and AlphaGo solves for this through selfplay given only the rules.

[chrisdbanks]

Assuming you know the right questions to ask. Most people don't know what they don't know. I've tried this. I'd prefer to pay a small amount to read the book.

[nimski]

Is that really that much of a barrier? Off the top of my head: you could start with a prompt like "write a summary of book XYZ, followed by a summary of each chapter". Then dive deeper into each one from there using the same prompt recursively, etc.

[bugglebeetle]

Yes, it’s a tremendous barrier, which is why academic fields tend to have introductions or surveys of the domain, stepwise instruction, with more in-depth or specialist knowledge being premised on having this understanding. I feel like this should be obvious to everyone? Did your education not follow such a progression?

[WalterBright]

Summaries are fair use.

[hnfong]

> if somehow designed not to hallucinate

We know this isn't possible at the moment. Are we going to legislate for something that is not yet technologically possible? Should judges decide cases because maybe ML researchers will figure out how to reliably stop models from hallucinating?

[pjfin123]

Under U.S. copyright law you can't copyright facts, only the artistic expression.

[Zambyte]

Unless we're talking about source code of course.

[jkaplowitz]

Even for source code, the US does not offer copyright to programs that are simple enough to have effectively one way to accomplish the desired function rather than requiring creative (aka artistic) choices by the programmer.

Example program specification for which the straightforward implementation in any common programming language would not be copyrightable by itself without adding additional scope: “When executed, output ‘Hello, world!’ plus a new line character to standard output, and then exit returning exit code 0.”

[Zambyte]

> Even for source code, the US does not offer copyright to programs that are simple enough to have effectively one way to accomplish the desired function

I think the fact you use the word "function" here is extremely telling. Writing code is obviously in a closer intellectual domain to designing a car engine, than it is to drawing a picture.

Maybe you have ground to stand on when talking about things like code golf which could be analogous to poetry. But no, the vast majority of code is not the product of artistic expression. It is the product of functional desires.

Not sure why you're trying to make an argument about trivial software. The same is true about trivial art: draw a black square on a white canvas. Good luck claiming copyright for that.

[jkaplowitz]

I disagree that the vast majority of code lacks artistic expression, especially when using the inclusive sense of the word “artistic” (or often “creative”) that the law uses to determine copyrightability.

There are so many different styles and designs when implementing any nontrivial underlying functional specification, and the preferences, choices, skill, and aesthetic of individual programmers definitely shine through. The ways you and I would find it straightforward to write a given program and the way I would write the same program are very probably recognizably different, beyond purely functional programs like the one I gave.

The existence of an underlying functional desire does not change the necessary artistic element in how to achieve that desire. Even in the traditional art world, an underlying functional desire is often more present than you think. Many artworks throughout history and even today are in fact commissioned, whether explicitly per-piece or through a patronage or employment relationship. A commissioned artwork is trying to satisfy either the specifications or the desires of the client. And among those which aren’t commissioned, like personal photographs, the underlying desire is often a functional one of remembering an occasion, despite the many clearly copyrightable artistic choices and skill required to create the work.

The black square on a white canvas example could very well be copyrightable, and I’d even guess that it usually is. Your functional specification still leaves the artist much freedom to choose the dimensions, relative positions and angles, exact shades of color, and materials of both the black square and the white canvas, as well as the shape of the canvas. Many ways to do it - and, importantly, no obvious one straightforward way to do it as there is in my trivial programming example.

[Zambyte]

> I disagree that the vast majority of code lacks artistic expression

I disagree that I made a claim that you're disagreeing with here. I said the vast majority of code is the product of functional desire. Building an engine is the product of functional desire. Building a birdhouse is the product of functional desire. Building a bridge is the product of a functional desire. Drawing a portrait is the product of artistic expression. All of these require creative thinking. One of them is copyrightable. Software is definitely closer in intellectual domain to what is not copyrightable than to what is.

I don't think copyright should exist at all, but I also 100% think you're kidding yourself if you think most software is an artistic endeavor.