Generative AI outputs are on a spectrum of plagiarism.
Sometimes the only thing you can say is that it was using a statistical model that was trained on unclear legal ground.
Other times, you have people pushing the limits:
> It appeared as if author, Lena McDonald, had used an AI to help write the book, asked it to imitate the style of another author, and left behind evidence they’d done so in the final work.
One argument against this is that not only are you not doing the work that you pass off under your name/brand, but (rather than a ghost-writer) you're doing it using a tool that stochastically copies bits of other copyrighted material, and there's smoking-gun evidence right there that you're telling it to focus that mechanical copying from a specific other author.
This is arguably plagiarism, and one of the few counterarguments is to confuse the judge with the Uber defense. ("But it's an app! So your outmoded 'laws' and 'rules' do not apply to me! Because technology! Checkmate!")
Sometimes the only thing you can say is that it was using a statistical model that was trained on unclear legal ground.
Other times, you have people pushing the limits:
> It appeared as if author, Lena McDonald, had used an AI to help write the book, asked it to imitate the style of another author, and left behind evidence they’d done so in the final work.
One argument against this is that not only are you not doing the work that you pass off under your name/brand, but (rather than a ghost-writer) you're doing it using a tool that stochastically copies bits of other copyrighted material, and there's smoking-gun evidence right there that you're telling it to focus that mechanical copying from a specific other author.
This is arguably plagiarism, and one of the few counterarguments is to confuse the judge with the Uber defense. ("But it's an app! So your outmoded 'laws' and 'rules' do not apply to me! Because technology! Checkmate!")