2 ms·

> meaningful human authorship How is this defined? Is my code review "meaningful" ? Are my amendments and edits to the generated code "human authorship" ?

• wayeq 6mo ago
  read the article?
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
• cooper_ganglia 6mo ago
  From the article: > Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.
  • TurdF3rguson 6mo ago
    That's interesting but how is anyone supposed to prove it? They would have to get their hands on your prompts.
    • archargelod 6mo ago
      Leaks, whistleblowers. Some circumstantial evidence will also do if there's enough of it. Like having hallucinated parts of code that do absolutely nothing, and can't be explained as e.g. leftovers from a refactor.
    • swiftcoder 6mo ago
      > They would have to get their hands on your prompts Unless you are running a local model, your prompts are almost certainly logged by your inference provider, and would only be a subpoena away?
  • ClikeX 6mo ago
    That still sounds incredibly vague and open for interpretation. For example, is setting up md files defining how you want things to be written enough?
  • matheusmoreira 6mo ago
    And what exactly does it mean to "direct" how the work is constructed? If I enter dark factory mode and go live my life while it churns tokens, then it's not copyrightable, but if I interact with it at every turn, then it is?