The takings clause of the fifth amendment allows seizure of private property for public use so long as it provides just compensation. So the necessary amendment already exists if they're willing to pay for it. Otherwise they'd need an amendment to circumvent the fifth amendment, to the extent the document is honored.
If generative AI models' output can't be copyrighted and turned into private IP, who is to say the output of gradient descent and back-propagation similarly can't be copyrighted? Neither are the creative output of a human being, but both are the product of automated and computed statistical processes.
Similarly, if AI companies want to come at dataset compilation and model training from a fair use angle, would it not be fair use to use the same models for similar purposes if models were obtained through eminent domain? Or through, like in Anthropic's training case, explicit piracy?
It doesn't make sense to me that whether the result of intellectual effort is property or not depends on the legal status of its output, whether its production involved automation, or if it involved statistical computation. These look like vague justifications to take something made by someone else because it has value to you, without compensation.
I'm looking at this through the lens of US copyright, where the Copyright Office determined that AI output isn't protected by copyright, and thus isn't private IP, as it isn't the creative output of a human being.
If the results of inference and generation can't be protected under copyright, as they aren't the creative output of a human being, why wouldn't the results of back-propagation and gradient descent follow the same logic?
This isn't about how we feel about it, it's a legal question.
But things like logarithmic table books existed in a world where the results of the calculations were not protectable as IP, no matter how much effort went into creating them.
