undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyencabulator2y ago0 comments

Is the contrivedness relevant to the legal question? It shows the model contains the copyrighted content and can reproduce it on demand.

0 comments

Gigachad2y ago

My brain contains loads of copyrighted info. And if I exactly reproduce it from memory, it's copyright infringement. But if I come up with my own work, even if using that copyrighted info to learn from, it isn't infringement.

yencabulatorOP2y ago

I don't understand why people keep comparing humans and computers. The law does not treat machinery equal to a human.

jaimex22y ago

You can't really say that. All this needs to be tested in court and see what definitions of what end up winning and setting precendent.

It can go either way.

Gigachad2y ago

How would you even know where it came from? If I commit some code, you’d have no idea if I came up with it myself or if AI generated it.

And why would it matter?

Filligree2y ago

Yes. Courts will generally assign blame to whoever did the thing that caused a breach of the law, which in this case is the user.

In other words, law isn’t a programming language.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Gigachad2y ago

yencabulatorOP2y ago

I don't understand why people keep comparing humans and computers. The law does not treat machinery equal to a human.

jaimex22y ago

You can't really say that. All this needs to be tested in court and see what definitions of what end up winning and setting precendent.

It can go either way.

Gigachad2y ago

How would you even know where it came from? If I commit some code, you’d have no idea if I came up with it myself or if AI generated it.

And why would it matter?

Filligree2y ago

Yes. Courts will generally assign blame to whoever did the thing that caused a breach of the law, which in this case is the user.

In other words, law isn’t a programming language.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse