4 ms·
It's most likely in reference to the recent US copyright office guidance on non-copyrightability of generative AI output: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy
by unnah 3y ago
It's most likely in reference to the recent US copyright office guidance on non-copyrightability of generative AI output: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
There's already been some discussion here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206
In any case, no one is going to deploy purely AI-generated code in the near future, which would be non-copyrightable. In practice any generated code will be edited by the human developer, and it doesn't take that much creative human input to make the result copyrightable.
- xlii 3y agoThat's a very optimistic take, though. Derivative works aren't as easily re-copyrightable. And we're considering context where programmer copy-pasted code from GPT, so probably it won't be rewritten in most chunks. There's also other part - if there's proof that partial code (even like 10%) is made using non-copyrightable solution it would be very hard to prove that the rest 90% is. Until the laws address those issues using any code from generator is a huge liability.