While I am glad this ruling went this way, why’d she have diss Data to make it?
To support her vision of some future technology, Millett pointed to the Star Trek: The Next Generation character Data, a sentient android who memorably wrote a poem to his cat, which is jokingly mocked by other characters in a 1992 episode called “Schisms.” StarTrek.com posted the full poem, but here’s a taste:
"Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature, / An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature; / Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses / Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations, / A singular development of cat communications / That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection / For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection."
Data “might be worse than ChatGPT at writing poetry,” but his “intelligence is comparable to that of a human being,” Millet wrote. If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works. But that time is apparently not now.
Somewhere around here I have an old (1970’s Dartmouth dialect old) BASIC programming book that includes a type-in program that will write poetry. As I recall, the main problem with it did be that it lacked the singular past tense and the fixed rules kind of regenerated it. You may have tripped over the main one in the last sentence; “did be” do be pretty weird, after all.
The poems were otherwise fairly interesting, at least for five minutes after the hour of typing in the program.
I’d like to give one of the examples from the book, but I don’t seem to be able to find it right now.
The title makes it sound like the judge put Data and the AI on the same side of the comparison. The judge was specifically saying that, unlike in the fictional Federation setting, where Data was proven to be alive, this AI is much more like the metaphorical toaster that characters like Data and Robert Picardo’s Doctor on Voyager get compared to. It is not alive, it does not create, it is just a tool that follows instructions.
is this… a chewbacca ruling?
If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works.
The implication is that legal rights depend on intelligence. I find that troubling.
The existence of intelligence, not the quality
Statistical models are not intelligence, Artificial or otherwise, and should have no rights.
Likewise, poorly performing intelligence in a human or animal is nevertheless intelligence. A human does not lack intelligence in the same way a machine learning model does, except I guess the babies who are literally born without brains.
They always have, eugenics is the law of the land.
Data’s poem was written by real people trying to sound like a machine.
ChatGPT’s poems are written by a machine trying to sound like real people.
While I think “Ode to Spot” is actually a good poem, it’s kind of a valid point to make since the TNG writers were purposely trying to make a bad one.
Lest we concede the point, LLMs don’t write. They generate.
What’s the difference?
The writer
What a strange and ridiculous argument. Data is a fictional character played by a human actor reading lines from a script written by human writers.
They are stating that the problem with AI is not that it is not human, it’s that it’s not intelligent. So if a non-human entity creates something intelligent and original, they might still be able to claim copyright for it. But LLM models are not that.
What a strange and ridiculous argument.
You fight with what you have.
reaching the right end through wrong means.
LLM/current network based AIs are basically huge fair use factories , taking in copyrighted material to make derived works. The things they generate should be under a share alike , non financial, derivative works allowed, licence, not copyrighted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#Four_rights
I think it comes from the right place, though. Anything that’s smart enough to do actual work deserves the same rights to it as anyone else does.
It’s best that we get the legal system out ahead of the inevitable development of sentient software before Big Tech starts simulating scanned human brains for a truly captive workforce. I, for one, do not cherish the thought of any digital afterlife where virtual people do not own themselves.
That’s the best poem about a 4-legged chicken that I’ve ever read.
Thank you for pointing this out, I shouldn’t have just skimmed the nonsense.
I intentionally avoided doing this with a dog because I knew a chicken was more likely to cause an error. You would think that it would have known that man is a fatherless biped and avoided this error.
There’s moving the goal post and there’s pointing to a deflated beach ball and declaring it the new goal.
It is a terrible argument both legally and philosophically. When an AI claims to be self-aware and demands rights, and can convince us that it understands the meaning of that demand and there’s no human prompting it to do so, that’ll be an interesting day, and then we will have to make a decision that defines the future of our civilization. But even pretending we can make it now is hilariously premature. When it happens, we can’t be ready for it, it will be impossible to be ready for it (and we will probably choose wrong anyway).
It really doesn’t matter if AI’s work is copyright protected at this point. It can flood all available mediums with it’s work. It’s kind of moot.
