Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed • Hacker News Board

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#191

Post by andybak » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 11:37 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #173

visarga wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is everyone fixating on 1% of the outputs. 99% are sufficiently distinct. It replicates code as an unintended side effect, but there are mitigations.

If you take all the words from Harry Potter and shuffle the words together in a random order, the output will be distinct but the work as a whole is probably still derivative. If you do that for 500 book series, you still haven't generated a new work, you've simply created a legal morass of derivative copyrights. ChatGPT is just a really impressive word-blender. All of those "sufficiently distinct" snippets are in a…

> If you take all the words from Harry Potter and shuffle the words together in a random order, the output will be distinct but the work as a whole is probably still derivative. If you do that for 500 book series, you still haven't generated a new work, you've simply created a legal morass of derivative copyrights.

This might be the worst metaphor I've stumbled across in this whole debate. You're surely making an argument here for the opposite team.

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#192

Post by joshspankit » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 11:55 PM UTC

I’m horrified.

If we let the powers that be force AI-generated content to be copyrighted, two things are going to happen:

1. The biggest benefits of AI are going to be pushed back for decades and possibly indefinitely

2. Artists will be absolutely slaughtered as the same rules will come at them full-force. Almost every artist draws inspiration from other creative work. That’s how creativity works. Can you imagine how stifling it would be for every artist to have to document and “pay for” every piece of art they’ve ever seen??

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#193

Post by joshspankit » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 11:58 PM UTC

I’m horrified.

I know we’re “just” talking about code here but decisions will be far-reaching and if we let the powers that be force AI-generated content to be copyright-attributed, two things are going to happen:

1. The biggest benefits of AI are going to be pushed back for decades and possibly indefinitely

2. Artists will be absolutely slaughtered as the same rules will come at them full-force. Almost every artist draws inspiration from other creative work. That’s how creativity works. Can you imagine how stifling it would be for every artist to have to document and “pay for” every piece of art they’ve ever seen??

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#194

Post by Filligree » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 12:14 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #108

Filligree wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI learns to generate watermark-like things, because those exist on a large fraction of its inputs. It doesn't mean the rest of the output existed in the training set. It's perfectly capable of generating a completely novel picture, then slapping a watermark on it.

My point is that the watermark is deterministic. It is taken whole-cloth from an input, and reproduced as-is on an output. Thus, it is able to be attributed. Stable diffusion is more like a paintshop artist who grabs bits and pieces of other art and melds them together, and less like a painter who creates from their imagination.

> It is taken whole-cloth from an input, and reproduced as-is on an output

This is only possible for elements that are repeated hundreds or thousands of times. It's generally considered a failure of training data curation, if it's anything more than watermarks. The AI can learn how to reproduce the watermark, while being literally unable to reproduce the pictures it was on.

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#195

Post by marstall » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 12:31 AM UTC

Thews wrote: post #63

marstall wrote: post #35

by reducing credit, copilot reduces incentive to create and publish free code. biting the hand that feeds it. exact same problem exists with GPT3 and others. big tech slashing and burning, ruthlessly exploiting the least empowered people in the tech economy. neat hack.

How does copilot reduce the incentive to publish free code?

> by reducing credit

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#196

Post by randombits0 » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:19 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #44

hutzlibu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Purely functional expressions may not be copyrighted." Is this more than a opinion? Because you can have whole programs as a long functional expression (not that I am a fan of such a coding style, but it exists).

It's not worded great (code can be owned under current law). But surprisingly enough, there is a core here that is more than opinion, it just needs some elaboration. It's also going to be hotly debated in the future, because right now most of the commercial AI-generators are just kind of ignoring this and at some point I think they're going to make the argument, "this law/interpretation can't hold or else it would be…

Nit to pick. Code cannot be owned. Rights to code may be owned. They are not the same. Otherwise, you’re spot on in my book.

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#197

Post by claytongulick » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

carapace wrote: post #149

claytongulick wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. You don't mind if I borrow your car do you? And your house? Let's not quibble about the particulars of me ever giving them back.

> You don't mind if I borrow your car do you? ZipCar, et. al. > And your house? AirBnB > Let's not quibble about the particulars of me ever giving them back. Symmetry.

Historically rent-seeking has been a negative for the health of society.

Granting overlords the power of ownership, reducing individuals to renters that must comply with the whims of the property masters, is not a path to increased liberty.

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#198

Post by monsieurbanana » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 12:45 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #34

monsieurbanana wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear how you decide which piece of code is creative and which isn't.

It's for a court of law to decide. GP was merely stating (what sounds like a fairly accurate) description of how copyright on code currently works in most jurisdictions.

GP was stating that AI couldn't own copyright because it wasn't creative enough. Now you're telling me (and I agree) that whether it's creative enough is up to a court of law to decide. Feels like we're agreeing then, and disagreeing with GP?

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#199

Post by danShumway » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 2:05 PM UTC

randombits0 wrote: post #196

danShumway wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not worded great (code can be owned under current law). But surprisingly enough, there is a core here that is more than opinion, it just needs some elaboration. It's also going to be hotly debated in the future, because right now most of the commercial AI-generators are just kind of ignoring this and at some point I think they're going to make the argument, "this law/interpretation can't hold or else it would be…

Nit to pick. Code cannot be owned. Rights to code may be owned. They are not the same. Otherwise, you’re spot on in my book.

Good point

Re: Ownership of AI-Generated Code Hotly Disputed

#200

Post by thn-gap » Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 2:50 PM UTC

c7b wrote: post #166

thn-gap wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it fair use if you train a model on copyrighted material and use its transformative output, despite going against the will of the author? Can we all legally pirate educational books since it's for self training and producing transformative outputs? Can I consume all media (books, movies, music) the same way, and call it fair use? Also for software?

Content that hasn't been legally obtained wouldn't be legal to consume in any way. That's not what I meant, and I think that's a bit of a disingenuous interpretation of my comment. The debate is about content that is generally legally obtained, but might come with certain restrictions. Where restrictions is a broad term and might also just come in the form of a copyleft license, eg. My main point was that in many sit…

I acknowledge I stretched a bit your comment. I meant it as a way to try to find the line on what's OK with these new AIs rather than ill-intended O:)

Regarding your point, I wonder how different is it to break the "terms of use" for fair right, vs breaking the "terms of obtaining" alltogether. They both are about jumping over owner's will, who has the full rights of the work.

I very much look forward to see how the ethics and law around these issues evolve.