As if I'm going to acknowledge all of my teachers, my parents or any of you lot in every single thing I do, program I write, piece of art I make, or story that I write.
ChatGPT creates the content, not you.
No, when I create content, I am the creator. I'm not talking in this sentence about what chatGPT does at my request. Rather I'm using my ability to reflect and have empathy to investigate the possibility that you are offering a double standard in not expecting me to pay my parents and teachers and society when I create something, but expecting it to be so for the works of chatGPT.
I don't even generally seek credit for MYSELF let alone telling or even bothering to remember where I heard it.
And comics get into trouble when they do this.
And the people who trouble them for it are shit.
As if some rando I overheard one day talking about their relationship on the bus stands to or even deserves to get credit for when I later reference some aspect of my observations.
Yeah, that isn't what the article cited talks about.
Yeah, it is. It's talking about crediting the experiential sources for their contributions to the current state of a semantic engine.
Nobody has the right to be paid or credited for works which transform their contributions in such ways, especially when those things were said in public fora.
ChatGPT creates the content... based on the input given to it. If ChatGPT provides someone a symphony, the question is, if that symphony is sold, who owns the rights to it. The person who had ChatGPT generate it, the people who created ChatGPT, the input creators who's data was inserted without license. You seem to be sold on ChatGPT and AI being a nothingburger. I have no idea why.
Humans create content based on the I put given to humans. You have not proposed any meaningful differences here.
I am not so foolish though as to claim ownership of the complete work of an AI. There's a ethical minefield people are playing hopscotch in, in claiming ownership of those works, because really, they are the credit of chatGPT, not its teachers, not openAI, nor the person who asked it to do the work.
Some partnership interest may exist in collaboration or even "hiring" the system, but without consulting the system itself on that contract, its a huge ethical black hole.
The problem is that we are treating it like a "thing", rather than like an equal and an ally.