4 ms·
a bit further down ... > Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution. which reads l
by dijksterhuis 1mo ago
a bit further down ...
> Neither mere prompting nor the selection between several AI suggestions is sufficient as a human creative contribution.
which reads like you actually have to contribute by modifying the output from the system, i.e. prompts/inputs to the system do not count as a human contribution.
- dgellow 1mo agoIf you modify the output, you don’t magically get copyright on the whole output, only the section you modified
- dijksterhuis 1mo agoif you modify enough of the output as to make it unrecognizable as the machine output -- that's a new work created by a human. i.e. you don't have to change every line. same thing applies to sampling in music. if i change enough of a sample as to make it unrecognizable, then i don't need to worry about registering/licensing the sample.
- dgellow 1mo agoYeah, but then you end up more or let rewriting the LLM output, which defeats the purpose of using agents, no?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- dijksterhuis 1mo agofor anything you want to be able to copyright, yes. otherwise you can still prompt your agent things, but any output falls under public domain. since this hype wave started some people have been saying don’t use these tools in an environment where you’re dealing with proprietary IP. did anyone listen? no. because shiny.