This isn’t surprising. It’s like saying “don’t post sensitive/proprietary info on stackoverflow and don’t blindly paste code from there into your professional work.”
Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
11–20 of 166 posts
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#12This isn’t surprising. It’s like saying “don’t post sensitive/proprietary info on stackoverflow and don’t blindly paste code from there into your professional work.”
Except they have an offering in the market for other people to do just that. Put stackoverflow aside, that’s not Google.
Gooogle telling staff to not use Bard would be like telling them a decade ago “don’t use android”
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're still at I didn't hear we were ever there?
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
> Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted
Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright.
To remove the AI from the equation for a second, imagine that I took four images of living artists' work, placed them in a 2x2 grid, and called that a new artwork. There are two seperate questions to consider: (1) have I infringed upon the original authors' copyrights, and (2) is the new thing I have created eligible for copyright.
The stance that there is "no copyright protection for works created by non-humans" only addresses the second question, not the first question of how it interacts with existing copyrights.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#14Yeah Google Bard seems to make up stuff way more than chatgpt and gives just wrong code. I asked for numpy code to fit a polyline rejecting outliers and it just made up an argument "robust" for polyfit. Chatgpt on the other hand generated a function that calculated standard deviation and removed points outside two sigma.
ํYes. Google Bard often make up imaginary syntax and commands.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're still at I didn't hear we were ever there?
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant?
Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human?
If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by a non-human? What if I use a printer?
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
> Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a secon…
If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by…
> Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work?
From what I gather, they just don't consider it a creation in a way that pertains to copyright laws. Like a rock on the beach.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted Is that last bit from the Copyright Office, or is it the author's interpretation? Because I could just as easily imagine the battle being over who or what was the actual creator of the content (i.e. is it a derivative work), rather than whether the thing the machine created is eligible for copyright. To remove the AI from the equation for a secon…
If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.
You missed the question.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#19Is this because of the accuracy of the results, or is it the rights to the content that is the problem? Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? There's probably going to be some big money arguing for the right to own content generated by their AI. I can't really see that being in the public interest though.
> AI generated works are public domain
That's not the status quo. The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim, in which case that code has the copyright of the original training set - which might be GPL or proprietary or whatever else.
Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard
#20Is this because of the accuracy of the results, or is it the rights to the content that is the problem? Barring any AI court case setting a precedent, We're still at 'AI generated works are public domain' aren't we? There's probably going to be some big money arguing for the right to own content generated by their AI. I can't really see that being in the public interest though.
> AI generated works are public domain That's not the status quo. The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim, in which case that code has the copyright of the original training set - which might be GPL or proprietary or whatever else.
I’m sure there are other ways do to this, but simply asking OpenAI to repeat a letter 100 times will eventually get you back to content that looks like it’s training set.