Is There Such a Thing as Original Thought?
“The soul … of all human utterances is plagiarism” ~ Mark Twain
If there's nothing new under the sun, does original thought exist? How does that factor into large language model training, response generation, and copyright laws?
Recently, someone on Threads said you can replace the term AI with "other people's work,” insinuating it is merely plagiarizing content. But is it? And doesn't that also apply to all human thought? Is there anything that we create that is intrinsically original? Was it not thought of by someone else or at least inspired by "other people's work"?
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” ~ Ecclesiastes 1:9
Think of the copyright suits against music creation AI platforms Suno and Udio. I used Suno to put contemporary stylings to some songs I wrote years ago (shared below) and am amazed at how good they sound. Do they sound uniquely original? What does that mean anyway? (I also used AI to create a band called “Soul Harbor,” but that’s a story for another day.)
Listen to just about any genre of music today — does one song sound so uniquely different than another? Did the songwriters and composers not draw on their experience and inspiration from others to create them?
You could argue, “But what about Elvis or the Beatles? Those were genre-bending artists.” That is true, but Elvis’s sound was influenced by gospel, blues, and country. The Beatles were influenced by Elvis, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, and others. What did they do?
To borrow from a Steve Jobs quote, they “connected things.”
Jobs understood the fallacy of original thought when he famously proclaimed that “creativity is just connecting things.”
Here’s Job’s quote from a Wired magazine article in 1996:
“Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people.”
Reader Comments
Mark Twain’s Famous Letter to Hellen Keller
Soon after Hellen Keller published The Frost King, she was caught in an intense legal battle.
Eight experts interrogated the twelve-year-old girl about her sources of inspiration. Were the similarities between Keller’s The Frost King and Margaret Canby’s Frost Fairies coincidental? Each individual argued passionately for Keller’s guilt or innocence.
Any child forced to endure such treatment would have been tempted to foreswear writing permanently. But fortunately, Samuel Clemens — AKA Mark Twain — approached her.
Before their first meeting, Clemens wrote a letter criticizing “those solemn donkeys breaking a little child’s heart with their ignorant rubbish about plagiarism.” He begged Keller to continue nourishing her creative gift.
“Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that ‘plagiarism’ farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism!
The kernel, the soul—let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism.
For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing.
When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed.
It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing — and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did.
These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.”
AI Outputs and Original Thought
If the concept of original thought is fallible, how does that apply to AI-generated outputs?
Large Language Models (LLMs) decide what content to output in response to prompts through a complex process involving multiple training stages and sophisticated text-generating mechanisms. The better the inputs, the better the outputs.
What they do not do is copy/paste directly from training data. They analyze and synthesize information in complex ways. Want to put that to the test? Input the exact prompt multiple times, and you will receive different responses.
AI and Copyright Laws
Let’s take this a step further. If that’s how AI works, how does it impact copyright laws and fair use? Let’s take a look at how different countries approach the topic:
United States
AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted, as U.S. copyright law only protects "original works of authorship" created by humans. The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly stated it will not register works created solely by AI. Fair use doctrine may protect the use of copyrighted materials for AI training, but this is currently being challenged in court.
European Union
The EU AI Act proposes requiring AI providers to disclose training data and obtain authorization from copyright holders. Discussions about transparency requirements and safeguards for AI-generated content moderation are ongoing.
United Kingdom
Like the U.S., the U.K. maintains that copyright protection applies only to human-created works. However, the U.K. has proposed changes to allow text and data mining for any purpose, including commercial AI development.
Japan
Japan has one of the most AI-friendly copyright laws globally. Their Copyright Act allows broad rights to use copyrighted works for AI training, including for commercial purposes. This extends to using content from potentially illegal sources as long as it doesn't "unjustly harm" the interests of copyright holders.
Key differences:
AI authorship. While the U.S. and U.K. explicitly reject copyright for AI-generated content, other countries have less clear positions.
Use of training data. Japan allows extensive use of copyrighted material for AI training, while the EU is considering stricter disclosure and authorization requirements.
Commercial use. Japan allows commercial use of copyrighted material for AI training, while other countries often restrict this.
Transparency. The EU is considering mandating disclosure of training data sources, which is not currently required in the U.S. or Japan.
These differences reflect varying approaches to balancing AI innovation with protecting copyright holders' interests. As AI technology rapidly evolves, copyright laws will likely continue adapting, and international harmonization may become a significant challenge.
So, what does that have to do with marketing and ethics?
My standard is that if the content solves problems, answers consumers’ questions, and addresses their needs, then what’s the dif? Who cares if it’s AI-generated or a human creation? In my case, due to the topics I cover assigned by clients, there is a genuine likelihood that what it outputs is better than what I would have come up with — after hours of research.
Problem solved. Time saved. Moving on.
At this point, my posture is to leave the hard work to LLMs and master their use — as long as I do it ethically.
I invite you to join the subscriber chat to discuss this topic. In my view, it bears much discussion.
