No, multimodal ChatGPT is not going to “trivially” solve Generative AI's copyright problems
We recorded 9 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 6 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (9)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“Fundamentally, Southen and I had argued that our images were evidence not only that some popular GenAI systems had trained on copyrighted images (nobody is really disputing this) but also that users might accidentally find themselves in trouble, because the GenAI systems don’t list sources, and don’t warn users about possible infringment.”
Our reading: Users of popular GenAI systems might accidentally get into legal trouble because the systems do not list sources or warn about possible infringement.
No horizon
Qualifier: because systems don't list sources or warn about infringement
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“We further speculated that smaller artists might be particularly vulnerable to being infringed; if the system made Mario, everyone might recognize that; if the system ripped off a lesser-known photographer, the user might fail to recognize the original source.”
Our reading: Marcus and Southen speculated that smaller artists might be particularly vulnerable to being infringed by GenAI, because a user might recognize a copy of Mario but might fail to recognize the original source when the system rips off a lesser-known photographer.
No horizon
Qualifier: presented as speculation
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Output similarity and how well can it be resolved may well be central in tons of upcoming lawsuits, and as such the outcome could have a huge impact on the future economics of generative AI.”
Our reading: Output similarity may be central in many upcoming lawsuits, and their outcome could greatly affect the economics of generative AI.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Reid spent about 45 minutes looking into this earlier today (why not more? see below) with images generated by Midjourney, and it quickly became apparent that using ChatGPT as intern to trace down sources is, well, pretty intermittent.”
Our reading: In a 45-minute test, multimodal ChatGPT was unreliable at identifying the copyrighted sources of Midjourney-generated images.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet has no independent record of the images Southen tested or of ChatGPT's answers to them.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“It might be trivial to do it for the most popular characters, presented in the most canonical ways, but getting it right for all copyright materials is an entirely different matter.”
Our reading: Building a classifier that detects copyrighted material might be trivial for the most popular characters presented in the most canonical ways, but getting it right for all copyrighted materials is an entirely different matter.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The packet contains no qualifying evaluation of the January 2024 comparison.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“(We also speculate that any such classifier would sometimes “false alarm” and misidentify some genuinely new materials as copyrighted.)”
Our reading: Marcus and Southen speculate that any such classifier for detecting copyrighted generated images would sometimes false-alarm and misidentify some genuinely new materials as copyrighted.
No horizon
Qualifier: presented as speculation
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“The moral of this story, like the moral of so many others I have told, is that almost nothing in AI is truly trivial.”
Our reading: Almost nothing in AI is truly trivial.
No horizon
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Forecast
“More than that, GenAI developers won’t get off so easy, and lawyers looking at copyright infringement will still have plenty of work to do.”
Our reading: GenAI developers will not easily escape copyright problems, and copyright infringement lawyers will have plenty of work.
Settled before its deadline Evidence as of
Limitation: The assessment treats substantial contested proceedings as the ordinary meaning of plenty of legal work.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Gary Marcus still thinks that licensing is the best and only way to go.”
Our reading: Gary Marcus still thinks that licensing is the best and only way to go in dealing with generative AI's copyright problems.
No horizon
Qualifier: stated as Marcus's continuing view ('still thinks')
Held from this post (4)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: It has not been shown that ChatGPT or reverse image search can reliably identify sources of generated images, especially for recent and less-known materials.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Identifying sources of generated images is not solved, and building a classifier to detect and suppress images containing copyrighted characters is not trivial.
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: 2024 is on track to be the year of generative AI litigation.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Some popular GenAI systems have trained on copyrighted images.