AI/LLMs Plagiarism vs. Inspiration

[Bill Zebub]

I think it fair to say that my grasp on copyright is quite clear. I have researched, filed and successfully acquired copyright in 2 countries.

Huh. IANAL but in the U.S. at least I thought you don't have to file for copyright. Isn't it just an automatic thing?

 

[1QD]

At this point in time, there’s no profits to maintain: most AI is not profitable, and are running billions in the red. And they’re still throwing money & resources at it in ways that are disruptive of other markets for goods (like certain computer components), services (like water & electric utilities), and places & things of cultural importance (ancestral lands, Neolithic art and wild horse herds in Nevada).

Why?

Enough of those powers behind the push for AI have goals that are not necessarily benign or beneficial to any but a few, and believe they have sufficient financial resources to weather current levels of negative press in order to achieve them.

I’m living in Texas, a state infamously so high on its own supply that its power grid is mostly isolated from the rest of the USA. The result of that independence is a terribly unstable power grid, prone to brownouts & blackouts when temps get too high or too low.

We also have a large number of data centers, and state leadership has been courting more with sweetheart deals on land, taxes and other services. One juicy benefit they get is that Texas pays those centers to minimize or cease operations when power demands are at their highest. Tails they win, heads we lose.

I highly suspect that those data centers serve an alternate purpose, henceforth why they are building soo many.

 

[1QD]

Huh. IANAL but in the U.S. at least I thought you don't have to file for copyright. Isn't it just an automatic thing?

There is a difference between copyright, and registered copyright. Normal copyright is granted to a creator when they create something. Registered copyright is a way of protecting your work should someone else claim they invented something prior to you. It grants a far better case in court, especially when you can show your work/process.

I too am not a lawyer, but have successfully represented my self in both countries.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I highly suspect that those data centers serve an alternate purpose, henceforth why they are building soo many.

Oooh....is that the premise of your game? Sounds like fun.

 

[1QD]

Ideas aren't copyrightable.

I believe we are beating a dead horse here. It isn't about if it is legal, it is about whether or not it is moral when you ,( not you personally), do so and whether or not AI does it. If it is wrong when AI does so, then it begs to question, legal or not, why is it moral when you do so?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

It can be moral when is your no-profit game borrowing ideas from some forgotten work of public domain.

 

[Umbran]

I also can appreciate your point on, I may not have the game changing mechanics that will revolutionize the RPG scene to come. But, if I did, is not my hesitation , some what understandable?

To quote a modern poet, "You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world."

I don't think anyone is going to "revolutionize the RPG scene" with some new mechanics. I've seen 50 years of new mechanics, but I don't know I'd say any of them "revolutionized" the entire scene on their own.

Maybe it would happen with a fundamentally different approach to play, but not with a new way to figure out if you hit a monster or not.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe we are beating a dead horse here. It isn't about if it is legal, it is about whether or not it is moral when you ,( not you personally), do so and whether or not AI does it. If it is wrong when AI does so, then it begs to question, legal or not, why is it moral when you do so?

From my perspective ideas and expressions are simply differences of resolution and not fundamentally different in nature.

So I agree they should morally be treated the same, even if there’s not a practical legal system that can do so.

But for me the flaw is in the premise of your argument - the assumption that copyright is a moral individual right instead of simply an incentive driven structure to change behavior for the overall benefit of society.

If you adopt this lens then treating ideas and expressions legally differently is conceptually fair solely because of the practicality of the incentive structure that can be created around each.

 

[Desdichado]

I believe we are beating a dead horse here. It isn't about if it is legal, it is about whether or not it is moral when you ,( not you personally), do so and whether or not AI does it. If it is wrong when AI does so, then it begs to question, legal or not, why is it moral when you do so?

Is it moral for me to do the macarena or the hammerdance at a party without first attributing them to Los Del Rio or MC Hammer and paying them a royalty? I don't understand how you fail to understand that your entire premise is incredibly flawed in spite of having it pointed out repeatedly. Your definition of what is moral is not one that society at large recognizes. If someone has a good idea and does something, then they can't claim a monopoly on the idea. Of course people will either imitate, reverse engineer, or build off of that idea, if its actually good.

Or do you not actually have any confidence in your idea, so you'd rather imagine that it's brilliant rather than put it to the test by putting it out there? What if nobody cares, nobody pays attention and nobody imitates it at all?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's only true because balance sheets combine existing products with future investments. The models currently on the market are running in the black when treated as their own P&L.

On the other hand, I got that information listening to Dwarkesh Patel's interview with Dario Amodei, and I'm guessing a lot of people here won't believe anything Amodei says, so....

Let’s just say I view that with the same critical eye as when I look at certain dubious financial ecosystems like “Hollywood Accounting”, “supply-side economics”, “sub-prime lending” and others I was formally educated about in my economics & law programs.