[photonthug]

There's no obvious need to hold people / AI to same standards here, yet, even if compression in mental-models is exactly analogous to compression in machine-models. I guess we decided already that corporations are already "like" persons legally, but the jury is still out on AIs. Perhaps people should be allowed more leeway to make possibly-questionable derivative works, because they have lives to live, and genuine if misguided creative urges, and bills to pay, etc. Obviously it's quite difficult to try and answer the exact point at which synthesis & summary cross a line to become "original content". But it seems to me that, if anything, machines should be held to higher standard than people.

Even if LLMs can't cite their influences with current technology, that can't be a free pass to continue things this way. Of course all data brokers resist efforts along the lines of data-lineage for themselves and they want to require it from others. Besides copyright, it's common for datasets to have all kinds of other legal encumbrances like "after paying for this dataset, you can do anything you want with it, excepting JOINs with this other dataset". Lineage is expensive and difficult but not impossible. Statements like "we're not doing data-lineage and wish we didn't have to" are always more about business operations and desired profit margins than technical feasibility.

[seanmcdirmid]

> But it seems to me that, if anything, machines should be held to higher standard than people.

If machines achieve sentience, does this still hold? Like, we have to license material for our sentient AI to learn from? They can't just watch a movie or read a book like a normal human could without having the ability to more easily have that material influence new derived works (unlike say Eragon, which is shamelessly Star Wars/Harry Potter/LOTR with dragons).

It will be fun to trip through these questions over the next 20 years.

[Jensson]

As long as machines needs to leech on human creativity those humans needs to be paid somehow. The human ecosystem works fine thanks to the limitations of humans. A machine that could copy things with no abandon however could easily disrupt this ecosystem resulting in less new things being created in total, it just leeches without paying anything back unlike humans.

If we make a machine that is capable of being as creative as humans and train it to coexist in that ecosystem then it would be fine. But that is a very unlikely case, it is much easier to make a dumb bot that plagiarizes content than to make something as creative as a human.

[seanmcdirmid]

> If we make a machine that is capable of being as creative as humans and train it to coexist in that ecosystem then it would be fine. But that is a very unlikely case, it is much easier to make a dumb bot that plagiarizes content than to make something as creative as a human.

I disagree that our own creativity doesn't work that way: nothing is very original, our current art is based on 100k years of building up from when cave man would scrawl simple art into the stone (which they copied from nature). We are built for plagiarism, and only gross plagiarism is seen as immoral. Or perhaps, we generalize over several different sources, diluting plagiarism with abstraction?

We are still in the early days of this tech, we will be having very different conversations about it even as soon as 5 years later.