5 ms·
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
by _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 agoI 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.