> If you believe AI can create and transform ideas, then you need lobby for the law to recognise that ability, but right now, only natural humans have that abil

> If you believe AI can create and transform ideas, then you need lobby for the law to recognise that ability, but right now, only natural humans have that ability according to the law My experience with ML tools like co-pilot is why I reject copyright claims on ML systems. there are a tool that generated original work based on my instructions not unlike a paintbrush, photoshop, or a CNC machine. My instructions were based on my exposure to copyrighted works. I use co-pilot as an accessibility device enabling me to write code again. like with speech recognition co-pilot is a force multiplier IF you change how you work. If you keep using the habits formed by typing, you will get shit results. The end result of the shift in how I work is now I know how to tell co-pilot how to write code in my style. My co-pilot generated code is no less my code than what I generate by hand. Co-pilot acts as an extension of my brain, not my fingers. Is my co-pilot generated code copyrightable? I say yes because it is the result of this human's creation and instruction.