3 ms·

Here the programmer was trying to make a point that AIs deserve to be marked as authors. I think this ruling is much less broad then the article is implying. Pr

Here the programmer was trying to make a point that AIs deserve to be marked as authors. I think this ruling is much less broad then the article is implying. Presumably an argument that the programmer deserved the copyright in deference to the creative work used to make the algorithm or that the AI is just a tool like photoshop or a camera might have worked, but the filer here wasn’t interested in that line of thinking and wanted to open up copyright to machines

__loam 3y ago
It's good that he failed. AI personhood is a ridiculous can of worms that we should avoid for as long as we can. Just look at the disaster that is corporate personhood.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also, if he didn't wouldn't basically automated camera be able to be set as author of photographs it takes? Actually that would be interesting hack for older people. As it could give longer period of protection than their natural lifespan.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  That disaster is the legal basis (in common law) for natural persons to sue corporate persons, and for governments to hold corporations accountable to laws separately from every individual member of the corporation, making it much easier to prosecute them.
  - yarhgoi 3y ago
    Conveniently shielding human perpetrators of white collar crime. This ephemeral fake world of contemporary society is not some sacrosanct construct, or divine mandate. There is no immutable obligation to preserve it.