4 ms·

I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. If I hire

by lwyrup 4mo ago

I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home. So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…

jonhohle 4mo ago
I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted: > As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
- tgma 4mo ago
  The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  Using a harness to build something should clear that barrier, by the same logic that a photographer pointing on camera at something and pressing a button clears the barrier.
unmole 4mo ago
> you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion. With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.
- DonHopkins 4mo ago
  [dead]
- lwyrup 4mo ago
  All computation abides by the same laws of getting sh*t done. Ask Mr. Amdahl. It starts with plebs (AI or otherwise) getting paid low wages.

by lwyrup 4mo ago

jonhohle 4mo ago

I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted: > As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

tgma 4mo ago
The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.
rpdillon 4mo ago
Using a harness to build something should clear that barrier, by the same logic that a photographer pointing on camera at something and pressing a button clears the barrier.

unmole 4mo ago

> you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion. With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.

DonHopkins 4mo ago
[dead]
lwyrup 4mo ago
All computation abides by the same laws of getting sh*t done. Ask Mr. Amdahl. It starts with plebs (AI or otherwise) getting paid low wages.