ChatGPT faces defamation lawsuits after making up stories about people

[GrauGeist]

Asimov's books "I, Robot" and "Robots of Dawn" was about as close to predicting the future as one can get.

 

[SaparotRob]

Remember Speedy, the robot prophet?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Remember Speedy, the robot prophet?

I remember the Microsoft paperclip assistant, that was annoying enough.

 

[buffnut453]

I remember the Microsoft paperclip assistant, that was annoying enough.

Well...THANKS! I'd managed to forget that and then you go and remind me. SHEESH...I thought we were friends!

 

[Marcel]

Well...THANKS! I'd managed to forget that and then you go and remind me. SHEESH...I thought we were friends!

 

[33k in the air]

One thing regarding AI-created art and writing that isn't being mentioned much is that under current U.S. copyright law, in order for a work to be copyrightable it must be human-created. This requirement was affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, so it's a well-established rule.

I'm not sure how the U.S. Copyright Office would determine what percentage of a created work must be human-authored in order to quality for copyright protection, and what criteria would be used to ascertain the percentage distribution of effort. I would expect there'll be court cases on the subject in the next few years.

 

[buffnut453]

View attachment 715720

Get thee to the naughty corner...NOW!!!!!

You're ruining my perception of the Dutch as a friendly people!

 

[33k in the air]

View attachment 715720

Awww, poor Clippy. He meant well.

 

[GrauGeist]

Get thee to the naughty corner...NOW!!!!!

You're ruining my perception of the Dutch as a friendly people!

Don't forget Merlin or the dog, too.

 

[buffnut453]

Don't forget Merlin or the dog, too.

Miss?...MISS!!!...They're ganging up on me! This isn't a safe, nurturing environment any more!!!

Right...I'm off to complete my "Hurt Feelings Report." That'll show y'all!!!!!

 

[Greg Boeser]

Wait. I thought, like, you know, artificial intelligence was, like, when, you know, a blonde dyes her hair brown, or something?

 

[SaparotRob]

One thing regarding AI-created art and writing that isn't being mentioned much is that under current U.S. copyright law, in order for a work to be copyrightable it must be human-created. This requirement was affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, so it's a well-established rule.

I'm not sure how the U.S. Copyright Office would determine what percentage of a created work must be human-authored in order to quality for copyright protection, and what criteria would be used to ascertain the percentage distribution of effort. I would expect there'll be court cases on the subject in the next few years.

Again we see The Man keeping down the Organically Challenged.

 

[33k in the air]

Again we see The Man keeping down the Organically Challenged.

It's the often forgotten Fourth Law of robotics: A robot's creative work, if it creates such, cannot be protected by copyright.

Curiously, Asimov wrote few stories involving that law.

 

[SaparotRob]

Anyone remember the "zeroeth" law?

 

[SaparotRob]

It's the often forgotten Fourth Law of robotics: A robot's creative work, if it creates such, cannot be protected by copyright.

Curiously, Asimov wrote few stories involving that law.

It was addressed in an episode of Star Trek Voyager.

 

[manta22]

Wait. I thought, like, you know, artificial intelligence was, like, when, you know, a blonde dyes her hair brown, or something?

It was addressed in an episode of Star Trek Voyager.

When Shatner left, I quit watching.

 

[SaparotRob]

When Shatner left, I quit watching.

And no bloody A, B, C or D.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's still all a case of human input giving the level of 'intelligent response'.

That's how we as humans learn new skills - how else would it be done? I learned my job by spending four years doing classroom and practical experience being taught to me by other people.

think we are on crossed paths here. I was referring to the human ability to create new things from nothing rather than
responding to an input. That is creative intelligence. There is a also our ability to take totally disparate information and connect
it to create something entirely new. Probably a different take on it is all.

Humans create through learned experience; never do we create from 'nothing'. Our inspiration comes from interpretation of inputs through our sensors to our brains. Computers do the same. The information might be added to the computer, but see above - we learn through life by analysing and interpreting inputs just like a computer. If you think artists create work without receiving any form of inspiration from their peers, you're sadly mistaken. Pick up a pencil and draw something. What's a bet you were inspired to draw whatever you end up with by a mental prompt that originated from something you learned at another time of your life.

 

[WARSPITER]

Creating from experience is the 'expert system' stage. Fairly easy to achieve even with a computer. It is where computers
are very handy due to speed.

Thought is the difference. Computers with 'AI' cannot think. Software cannot correlate a solution to a problem with no
input. The human brain can and it is something that fields of science still can't understand, let alone emulate.

Computer AI is really just specialised expert systems. It still needs an input to give an output. Otherwise it just sits there
waiting. Our brain is constantly working and again nobody really knows exactly why.

rating intelligence is difficult too. I always thought whoever invented the wheel was pretty clever but then I read that
that person was an idiot. The real genius was whoever came up with the other three.

 

[33k in the air]

One thing regarding AI-created art and writing that isn't being mentioned much is that under current U.S. copyright law, in order for a work to be copyrightable it must be human-created. This requirement was affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, so it's a well-established rule.

For those who want to see a source for the above, here is the relevant portion from the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

Chapter 306

The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.

The copyright law only protects "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the mind." Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to "original intellectual conceptions of the author," the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884). For representative examples of works that do not satisfy this requirement, see Section 313.2 below.


Chapter 313.2 — Works That Lack Human Authorship

As discussed in Section 306, the Copyright Act protects "original works of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (emphasis added). To qualify as a work of "authorship" a work must be created by a human being. See Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co., 111 U.S. at 58. Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable.

The U.S. Copyright Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy(ies) state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.

Examples:

• A photograph taken by a monkey.
• A mural painted by an elephant.
• A claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin.
• A claim based on driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by the ocean.
• A claim based on cut marks, defects, and other qualities found in natural stone.
• An application for a song naming the Holy Spirit as the author of the work.

Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. The crucial question is "whether the 'work' is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine." U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966).

Examples:

• Reducing or enlarging the size of a preexisting work of authorship.
• Making changes to a preexisting work of authorship that are dictated by manufacturing or materials requirements.
• Converting a work from analog to digital format, such as transferring a motion picture from VHS to DVD.
• Declicking or reducing the noise in a preexisting sound recording or converting a sound recording from monaural to stereo sound.
• Transposing a song from B major to C major.
• Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment.
• A claim based on a mechanical weaving process that randomly produces irregular shapes in the fabric without any discernible pattern.