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).
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Huh….
I wonder how this will be ruled. Can the company really be held accountable for what the AI creates independently?
Kind of an unexplored area.
If so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copyright claims over AI generated art… For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly…
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Japan was (to my knowledge) the first country to officially rule on AI generated images with regards to copyright… They deemed it fair game to use copyrighted material in training, but subject to copyright infringement if the AI generates something too close to copyrighted material. It’ll be interesting to see where other countries weigh in on this issue.
Theoretically, someone has to be considered responsible for what an AI does. Especially now that we’re seeing businesses start using AI for things like talking to customers… If they had full immunity against lawsuits for things their AI says, that’d set a really bad precedent; we’ll just have to see where the line gets drawn.
deleted by creator
