6 ms·

That's not really the question being asked, we all know that we're not there yet. We aren't asking "can AI own IP?", rather, "who (as in: which person or entity

That's not really the question being asked, we all know that we're not there yet. We aren't asking "can AI own IP?", rather, "who (as in: which person or entity) owns the IP developed by AI, if anyone?"

shmerl 7y ago
The answer to that should be related to the above. If it's something created by the artificial mind comparable to human, then that mind should own it, regardless of who created the mind itself. If it's not on that level, then no one should own it, like it's now the case with animals. Creators of the artificial author shouldn't get any copyrights on those works in either case.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  > Creators of the artificial author shouldn't get any copyrights on those works in either case. Interesting that you think so. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning, taking into account other comments in the thread that make the case for AI simply being yet another tool for an artist to use?
  - shmerl 7y ago
    Because it's different from a passive tool like keyboard you are using for typing your creation and such. The program actively creates something. Author of the program isn't creating the result, the program is. As I said in the second comment, the whole idea of copyright is based on the incentive. Once that program is out, the author of the program doesn't do anything, i.e. idea of incentive is irrelevant to the resulting works. You can take it to absurd level. Let's say you write a program that generates every possible text combination, increasingly. Does it mean the author of the program should have copyright potentially on every (not yet copyrighted) text? Of course not, even if resulted texts are original and not gibberish. Same applies to any media, not just text of course.
    - rahuldottech 7y ago
      Interesting, I see your point. On a related note: > Let's say you write a program that generates every possible text combination, increasingly. This has been done: https://libraryofbabel.info/search.cgi https://libraryofbabel.info/search.cgi
      - shmerl 7y ago
        That's interesting, and demonstrates that idea well :)
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  Copyright only exists to stop humans from being upset over their work being appropriated. The AI, no matter how much you program it to pretend to care, can never be sentient enough to actually care, therefore they do not deserve rights like this. AI are tools and no matter how close they get to humanity it would be dangerous to consider them human.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    > Copyright only exists to stop humans from being upset over their work being appropriated. That's not the intention of it. You can read the definition. It's to incentivize creativity. Otherwise it shouldn't even apply. > The AI, no matter how much you program it to pretend to care, can never be sentient enough to actually care It's more or less what I said as well, i.e. if it's not comparable to human, it shouldn't be applied.
shmerl 7y ago
And you can take this question further. What about artificial mind that far exceeds human mind? Copyright is about incentives. I.e. it gives the author incentive to create, at the cost for society, that limited monopoly is granted to the author (for a moment, let's disregard the absurd length it got stretched to today, and take it at what it's supposed to be). If that artificial mind doesn't need such incentive and can create a lot more than normal human would very easily, I'd say in such case copyright shouldn't apply as well.

shmerl 7y ago

The answer to that should be related to the above. If it's something created by the artificial mind comparable to human, then that mind should own it, regardless of who created the mind itself. If it's not on that level, then no one should own it, like it's now the case with animals. Creators of the artificial author shouldn't get any copyrights on those works in either case.

rahuldottech 7y ago
> Creators of the artificial author shouldn't get any copyrights on those works in either case. Interesting that you think so. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning, taking into account other comments in the thread that make the case for AI simply being yet another tool for an artist to use?
- shmerl 7y ago
  Because it's different from a passive tool like keyboard you are using for typing your creation and such. The program actively creates something. Author of the program isn't creating the result, the program is. As I said in the second comment, the whole idea of copyright is based on the incentive. Once that program is out, the author of the program doesn't do anything, i.e. idea of incentive is irrelevant to the resulting works. You can take it to absurd level. Let's say you write a program that generates every possible text combination, increasingly. Does it mean the author of the program should have copyright potentially on every (not yet copyrighted) text? Of course not, even if resulted texts are original and not gibberish. Same applies to any media, not just text of course.
  - rahuldottech 7y ago
    Interesting, I see your point. On a related note: > Let's say you write a program that generates every possible text combination, increasingly. This has been done: https://libraryofbabel.info/search.cgi https://libraryofbabel.info/search.cgi
    - shmerl 7y ago
      That's interesting, and demonstrates that idea well :)
WilliamEdward 7y ago
Copyright only exists to stop humans from being upset over their work being appropriated. The AI, no matter how much you program it to pretend to care, can never be sentient enough to actually care, therefore they do not deserve rights like this. AI are tools and no matter how close they get to humanity it would be dangerous to consider them human.
- shmerl 7y ago
  > Copyright only exists to stop humans from being upset over their work being appropriated. That's not the intention of it. You can read the definition. It's to incentivize creativity. Otherwise it shouldn't even apply. > The AI, no matter how much you program it to pretend to care, can never be sentient enough to actually care It's more or less what I said as well, i.e. if it's not comparable to human, it shouldn't be applied.

shmerl 7y ago

And you can take this question further. What about artificial mind that far exceeds human mind? Copyright is about incentives. I.e. it gives the author incentive to create, at the cost for society, that limited monopoly is granted to the author (for a moment, let's disregard the absurd length it got stretched to today, and take it at what it's supposed to be). If that artificial mind doesn't need such incentive and can create a lot more than normal human would very easily, I'd say in such case copyright shouldn't apply as well.