3 ms·
IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved,
by throwup238 7mo ago
IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved, it gets a lot more complicated and rests on whether the human's contribution was substantial enough to make it copyrightable under their person.
- galaxyLogic 7mo agoA fun exercise: When Supreme Court has not ruled on an open legal question of interest, let's ask AI what would be a likely ruling by Supreme Court. I think SCOTUS might in fact use AI to get a set of possible interpretations of the law, before they come up with their decision. AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.
- CrazyStat 7mo ago> AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons. This is what lawyers do, in their briefs and oral arguments before the court.
- galaxyLogic 7mo agoTrue. But if I was a judge I might want to consult AI to get a "neutral" opinion.
- CrazyStat 7mo agoAI "neutrality" is a mirage. Hopefully the Supreme Court justices are smart enough to know that.
- galaxyLogic 7mo agoHopefully. If they are smart they know that everybody can be wrong, therefore it is good to hear differing opinions and argumentation from multiple sources, in important matters.
- CrazyStat 7mo agoYes, that’s why they have lawyers submit briefs and make oral arguments.