this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
46 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
405 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Spitfire@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Huh….

I wonder how this will be ruled. Can the company really be held accountable for what the AI creates independently?

Kind of an unexplored area.

[–] ElectronSoup@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doubtful, courts have already ruled AI isn't a 'person' who can create a copyrighted work, thus a non-person can't be held liable for defamation most likely.

[–] rysiek@mstdn.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@ElectronSoup @borari @Spitfire that's just mathwashing:
https://www.mathwashing.com/

The tool cannot be liable itself, obviously, but the creators of the tool and those who wield it absolutely can, depending on specific circumstances.

The "AI" does not "create independently". Just like a script with some randomness built in does not "create independently". Somebody designed and built the tool, somebody decided what training data to use, somebody decided to deploy it. These people are liable.

[–] borari@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

The tool cannot be liable itself, obviously, but the creators of the tool and those who wield it absolutely can...

I absolutely agree with you here. The creators of the tool are responsible for its content. I'm a complete supporter of Section 230 in the US, but I absolutely do not think that sort of protection should apply to companies like OpenAI. Their tool created the content, their tool "published" the content, they are responsible for that content.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copyright claims over AI generated art... For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly...

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Japan was (to my knowledge) the first country to officially rule on AI generated images with regards to copyright... They deemed it fair game to use copyrighted material in training, but subject to copyright infringement if the AI generates something too close to copyrighted material. It'll be interesting to see where other countries weigh in on this issue.

Theoretically, someone has to be considered responsible for what an AI does. Especially now that we're seeing businesses start using AI for things like talking to customers... If they had full immunity against lawsuits for things their AI says, that'd set a really bad precedent; we'll just have to see where the line gets drawn.

[–] enkiusz@is-a.cat 1 points 1 year ago

@Spitfire @borari The unreliability of chatgpt and its propensity to generate lies was discovered on day 1 of it becoming public. OpenAI did not pull the plug. They likely did not care. Making them accountable is basic justice.