[simion314]

>Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.

You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader.

My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset?

If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filter to it then sell it as my own, is this legal? is my script "creative"?

This AIs are not really creative, they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used but in other cases it was shown ezactly the source that was used and just copy pasted in the answer.

[Ukv]

> My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset?

I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.

> they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used

Even if you actually interpolated some set of inputs (which is not how diffusion models or transformers work), without substantial similarity to a protected work you're in the clear.

> is my script "creative"? [...] This AIs are not really creative [...]

There's no requirement for creativity - even traditional algorithms can make modifications such that the result lacks substantial similarity and thus is not copyright infringement, or is covered by fair use due to being transformative.

[simion314]

>I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.

Agree. copyright is clear, so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct? Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI while a human would have had to pay damages.

[Ukv]

> so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct?

If by "make" you mean you're coaxing it into outputting your work, it'd be difficult to allege damages. If you show it's regurgitating your registered work to normal users, and it's not covered by fair use factors (e.g: it's outputting a significant portion of your work, in a non-transformative manner, and this is negatively impacting the market for that work), then you'd have a good case to bring.

> Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI

Rarity will affect damages, but they wouldn't be off the hook if such a situation does happen. To my knowledge no safe harbor applies here, given it's their own bot and not human users.