I imagine they’ll settle this at hyperspeed. The absolute last thing anyone in the AI space wants to do is set legal precedents (because then they wouldn’t be getting away with half the shit they’re doing).
Sooner or later they're gonna run afoul of The Mouse, and then Mickey's gonna sic the (legal) Death Star on them. When that happens all these copyright/liability questions are going to get sorted out real fast, and probably not in a way that anybody but Disney will be happy with.
Pretty sure this won’t work. It needs to be made more clear what ChatGPT is and isn’t to people who don’t understand that it’s not a super tool that can read our minds.
Doubtful, courts have already ruled AI isn't a 'person' who can create a copyrighted work, thus a non-person can't be held liable for defamation most likely.
The tool cannot be liable itself, obviously, but the creators of the tool and those who wield it absolutely can, depending on specific circumstances.
The "AI" does not "create independently". Just like a script with some randomness built in does not "create independently". Somebody designed and built the tool, somebody decided what training data to use, somebody decided to deploy it. These people are liable.
If so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copywrite claims over AI generated art... For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly...
@Spitfire@borari The unreliability of chatgpt and its propensity to generate lies was discovered on day 1 of it becoming public. OpenAI did not pull the plug. They likely did not care. Making them accountable is basic justice.
OpenAI's defence would have to be that it's not reasonable to believe the facts spoken by ChatGPT are truthful or with merit. I'm also not sure if this would fly as it's not purposeful conduct by the defendant. Will be interested to see how the court weighs it.