3 ms·

This doesn't sound like it would be possible. Depending on how strict your definition of generated code is, it would be impossible to copyright any compiled cod

by _gabe_ 4y ago

This doesn't sound like it would be possible. Depending on how strict your definition of generated code is, it would be impossible to copyright any compiled code. If you have a looser definition, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to copyright code that you generated by using Unreal Engine's blueprint to C++ utility, or any other tool that assists in transpiling code. 99% of the web consists of transpiled JS these days.

withinboredom 4y ago
There's a difference between "generated" and "processed/transformed through a process". The fact that the chemical composition of paint changes as it dries does not change the art.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  According to Websters, to generate is: > : to define or originate (something, such as a mathematical or linguistic set or structure) by the application of one or more rules or operations[0] Creating something from the application of rules or operations sounds just like what a compiler does. Whereas to process something is: > : treated or made by a special process especially when involving synthesis or artificial modification So if anything it sounds like you're asking if processed code is copyrightable. But this is just quibbling over pedantry. My original point stands. AI is just following a predefined set of rules to transform your request into code. It's a program, just like a compiler is a program. So it would be really hard to say that AI generated code is non copyrightable, but compiler/transpiler/fuzzy generated code is copyrightable. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/process https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/process
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    I think we can all agree that copilot “generates” code. In that the code did not exist until copilot suggests it. I also think we can agree that a compiler turns existing code into new code that does the exact same thing the code describes. If we can’t agree on that, we have some pretty fundamental definitions to figure out in the courts.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

withinboredom 4y ago

There's a difference between "generated" and "processed/transformed through a process". The fact that the chemical composition of paint changes as it dries does not change the art.

_gabe_ 4y ago
According to Websters, to generate is: > : to define or originate (something, such as a mathematical or linguistic set or structure) by the application of one or more rules or operations[0] Creating something from the application of rules or operations sounds just like what a compiler does. Whereas to process something is: > : treated or made by a special process especially when involving synthesis or artificial modification So if anything it sounds like you're asking if processed code is copyrightable. But this is just quibbling over pedantry. My original point stands. AI is just following a predefined set of rules to transform your request into code. It's a program, just like a compiler is a program. So it would be really hard to say that AI generated code is non copyrightable, but compiler/transpiler/fuzzy generated code is copyrightable. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generate [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/process https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/process
- withinboredom 4y ago
  I think we can all agree that copilot “generates” code. In that the code did not exist until copilot suggests it. I also think we can agree that a compiler turns existing code into new code that does the exact same thing the code describes. If we can’t agree on that, we have some pretty fundamental definitions to figure out in the courts.