3 ms·
I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found o
by circuit10 7mo ago
I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)
- AnthonyMouse 7mo agoNever mind that. If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?
- compsciphd 7mo agoAI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result. a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo agoIf your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?
- compsciphd 7mo agobecause they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium. I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo agoThe original argument was that AI works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are deterministic, i.e. are just an algorithmic transformation lacking in creativity.
- compsciphd 7mo agothat doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here "The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner." you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable. the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.
- freejazz 7mo ago> human review or testing Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested
- circuit10 7mo agoI guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work