• Uninvited Guest@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    When a school professor “prompts” you to write an essay and you, the “tool” go consume copyrighted material and plagiarize it in the production of your essay is the infringement made by the professor?

      • Uninvited Guest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It definitely does not cite sources and use it’s own words in all cases - especially in visual media generation.

        And in the proposed scenario I did write the student plagiarizes the copyrighted material.

        • Politically Incorrect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          If you read a book or watch a movie and get inspired by it to create something new and different, it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement?

          If that were the case the majority of stuff nowadays it’s plagiarism and copyright infringement, I mean generally people get inspired by someone or something.

          • potustheplant@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You do realize that AI is just a marketing term, right? None of these models learn, have intelligence or create truly original work. As a matter of fact, if people don’t continue to create original content, these models would stagnate or enter a feedback loop that would poison themselves with their own erroneous responses.

            AIs don’t think. They copy with extra steps.

          • buffaloseven@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            There’s a long history of this and you might find some helpful information in looking at “transformative use” of copyrighted materials. Google Books is a famous case where the technology company won the lawsuit.

            The real problem is that LLMs constantly spit out copyrighted material verbatim. That’s not transformative. And it’s a near-impossible problem to solve while maintaining the utility. Because these things aren’t actually AI, they’re just monstrous statistical correlation databases generated from an enormous data set.

            Much of the utility from them will become targeted applications where the training comes from public/owned datasets. I don’t think the copyright case is going to end well for these companies…or at least they’re going to have to gradually chisel away parts of their training data, which will have an outsized impact as more and more AI generated material finds its way into the training data sets.

      • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Copilot lists its sources. The problem is half of them are completely made up and if you click on the links they take you to the wrong pages