> I don't see how this is the case
If it wasn't the case, what's the point of these models getting billions of dollars thrown at them? What's the actual sales pitch for using them in the economy?
> and if it hinged on that, how is it different from a book citing another book. That book competes with the book it's citing.
One of the obvious differences is these models don't cite their sources. Even if you can get them to generate something that looks like a cite, it's not a real cite of the works the model actually used.
This is a digression. There are use cases other than creating competing books, do I need to actually list them out?
- Turning unstructured text into structured data.
- Summarizing news
- Sentiment analysis
- Semantic search
- Helping people write research papers
and more.
How do any of those compete with fiction or non-fiction books?
> One of the obvious differences is these models don't cite their sources.
Do I need to cite the math textbook that I used to learn algebra when I write a book on calculus?
Are the generative models crippled to only be able to do those things?
And some of the things you list are also likely to be in direct competition with the original works (e.g. "Summarizing news.") I believe "AI" generated news sites are already a thing (e.g. plagiarizing/summarizing original news articles, so another party can generate ad-revenue from them).
> Do I need to cite the math textbook that I used to learn algebra when I write a book on calculus?
No, because I previously said: "...generative AI systems aren't people, so I think it's totally fair to not grant their operators rights by analogy to something a human [mind] would do."
Do I need to cite the math textbook that I used to learn algebra when I write a book on calculus?
Yes, you do, if you put verbatim snippets of those textbooks in your own work.
I think you are being purposefully obtuse.
E.g.
"The burden of proof when republishing the output of AI generated content is on the person publishing the generated content. All unlicensed sources must be cited in a public searchable index."
With this, if you're a company and you accidentally use the output of Generative AI you have liability if the work is infringement.
This gives companies an incentive to have licenses for their content but doesn't strictly prohibit ~linking~ sourcing from publically available content.
This will also allow the industry to use publicly viewable content to push the boundaries of generative AI in a research capacity without fear of liability.
A person could tell a sufficiently advanced generative AI trained on licensed data to recreate something under copywrite by just describing it. You would not be able to publish that output.
Could you provide an example of a book citing an other book which as a result competed with the book it cited that would not fall under critique or review?
I don't see how this is the case and if it hinged on that, how is it different from a book citing another book. That book competes with the book it's citing.