It seems that US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and I are in agreement -- I have long claimed that the output of a bot is a speech act by its creator. If my bots say something shitty, that is on me. I think the creator of an AI should be liable for its outputs.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Darius Kazemi • •Darius Kazemi
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Darius Kazemi • •I know there have been attempts throughout the world to get courts to agree that AI-generated images (in particular) can be copyrighted, and the general feeling is that they can't, on the grounds that humans are not involved in the creation.
If creators of an AI can be liable, it would be easy to argue that they should be granted #copyright on AI-generated works too. If they could get copyright, it would not be good.
Darius Kazemi
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •John Carlsen
in reply to Darius Kazemi • • •@eibhear
I think existing US copyright law is good enough.
A chatbot will substantively transform its data set based on a query, and output it according to a prompt and its algorithms. I'd say that makes its operator liable for its ouput (and possibly violating copyrights when creating its data set).
In contrast, a web search should accurately quote and cite sources, deflecting liability to those sources.