← Back to context

Comment by downrightmike

2 months ago

The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.

Does my software have the right to read the contents of a DVD and sell my own MP4 of it then no. If a streamer plays a YouTube video on there channel is the content original then yes. When gpt3 was training people saw it as a positive. When people started asking chatgpt more things than searching sites it became a negative.

If AI was just reading, there would be much less controversy. It would also be pretty useless. The issue is that AI is creating its own derivative content based on the content it ingests.

  • Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.

    • This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface.

      Even if you give GenAI unlimited time, it will not develop its own writing/drawing/painting style or come up with a novel idea, because strictly by how it works it can only create „new” work by interpolating its dataset

      16 replies →

kind of. the constitution as a whole, and the amendments, don't give you the right to do anything. you have the right to do whatever you want whenever you want. the constitution tells the government what it can and can not stop you from doing.

I'm not sure the US 'First Amendment' is relevant here? DeepSeek is in China.