391–400 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never for the generated work, because a human isn't doing it, but you may be able to copyright the prompt
The prompt isn't a creative work, it's constrained by a technical need (producing a desired response from a generative computer system).v
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT?
Honestly, it seems like if you accept any contract law you implicitly must accept copyright law. Consider the following contracts: I agree to harvest your crops in exchange for 50% of the yield. I agree to sing if you give me supper. I agree to sing if you give me supper and not record me. I agree to sing if you give me supper and subscribe to all the rules of copyright law. I agree to sing if you give me supper and…
I want to hear you respond to this, as I'm about to respond to you. I see no reason to continue if you're just going to avoid anything I say while yourself trying everything to see what will stick.
It's not alien that I believe property excludes thoughts, as you're trying to make it seem. Most people agree with me, until it wouldn't benefit them to do so. Again, I demonstrate this with your presumed support of IP for artists and opposition to IP for NFTs. You would argue against IP for NFTs the same way I'm arguing against you right now, the only difference is that I'm consistent.
IP addresses are not property. Neither are trademarks. We can argue about the slightly related topic of whether they deserve government protections anyways, but it wouldn't be because they're property.
No, copyright and contract law have little to do with each other and you're making a giant leap of logic. Namely, I can find a way to obtain your copyrighted content without making any agreement with you, and still be held legally liable for it. Torrenting copyrighted content someone else broke the rules to seed is one such example. On the other hand, I can't be punished for listening to you sing for someone else in exchange for food, even if I didn't give you any food myself.
Yes there's plenty of things that we don't explicitly agree to and I'm in favour of keeping that list as short as possible. I don't agree that some of the things you listed should be implicit. Nobody is perfectly consistent, but at a baseline I'm far more consistent than you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me you have never done anything creative in your life without telling me you have never done anything creative in your life.
Implying I’d be willing to bend my principles when they don’t benefit me, which I wouldn’t. That’s what makes us different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have two thoughts about this. First is who cares about large corporations? Sure large corporations have the money to buy licensed software, but I know plenty of small-to-medium corporations that operate on pirated software. Second is your statement doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, you can enact a policy in your corporation that no one is allowed to use AI tools like Copilot to write code, but how do you monitor t…
> Yes, you can enact a policy in your corporation that no one is allowed to use AI tools like Copilot to write code, but how do you monitor this? How do you know if some developer did use Copilot? That’s easy: corporate firewalls that block all traffic to openai.com, its subdomains and the IP ranges used by GitHub Copilot. Enterprises that care about exfiltration of code from their internal networks (e.g. banks and o…
Yeah, just like how last week I requested IT to open up twitch.tv so I can watch programming live streams over lunch, but I was denied (however Youtube is wide open, so I could just watch the VODs anyway) and instead I just used my phone's data to watch twitch on lunch.
If corporate firewall is anything but a slight inconvenience for you then you are not technical.
Last part is such nosense I can't even respond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah but you could get the AI to write the code on your personal laptop, then copy it over to the work laptop. I can see this being a thing.. "I have three jobs as Senior Engineer for three different organisations. All I do is copy code from an AI engine to my work laptop all day"
I guess that could happen and we will definitely see some people try this. But in the grand scheme of things, it will be exceptionally rare. Most developers can't work outside their developer environment set up by their company, they often rely on internal tools, services hosted on the internal network, stuff like that. If stackoverflow and google didn't cause this to happen, I don't see how GPT will.
Are you kidding me? Is this really how you see our industry? You really think that most developers literally can not do work without their company's IT setting up their machine?
Is this normal? This to me sounds like you are saying most devs are such noobs that they can't do their jobs.
It’s going to be insanely hard to copyright anything produced by AI. Especially now that generative models are widely available/in use. The possibility of multiple instances of the same output being produced (as a whole, or in parts) is high. All you have to do is set the temperature low and the generative models will start producing repeatable results. All of a sudden, copyrighting GitHub Copilot supported source co…
I like to watch people play with Midjourney in the public Discord channels, and I can only assume that if the AI generated an image for somebody, it could generate the same image for me. (If the seed and prompt just happen to be exactly the same) People using AI generated images are not going to be able to sue for copyright infringement because they can never be sure the AI didn't just generate the same image for som…
If the training data is unique, and the copyrighter can prove that, then I would consider the end-result copyrightable.
Also - what’s stopping people from lying on their applications about the origin of their work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implying I’d be willing to bend my principles when they don’t benefit me, which I wouldn’t. That’s what makes us different.
Press X to doubt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, it seems like if you accept any contract law you implicitly must accept copyright law. Consider the following contracts: I agree to harvest your crops in exchange for 50% of the yield. I agree to sing if you give me supper. I agree to sing if you give me supper and not record me. I agree to sing if you give me supper and subscribe to all the rules of copyright law. I agree to sing if you give me supper and…
> Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT? I want to hear you respond to this, as I'm about to respond to you.…
So re ipaddresses what characteristic differentiates the from property? For them to be useful it would seem they must have pretty much all the same characteristics.
I agree there could be a world where people could torrent whatever w/o repercussion, in the same way there could be a world where we didn't have to wear pants. It's not where we are, but we can imagine and reason about it.
But even in such a world, should a singer not be allowed to make a contract where they sing but won't be recorded, or a contract where they are recorded only if the folks follow copyright law? Effectively isn't this what many trade agreements are, one country will give another favorable trade conditions X in exchange for Y which includes 'your population can't torrent'. The country voluntarily does so because X is worth it. In fact elsewhere in this thread someone said exactly this happened in their country. Should this contract not be allowed, why not?
So I feel like even if you started in a world that allowed torrenting, if you allowed contract law, you would inevitably evolve to a world that disallowed torrenting, because that's a contract some people would want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compilers don’t create a new copyright the output is covered as a derivative work. However, derivative works have clear limitations and the output of a chat program doesn’t qualify any more than you own the copyright of what someone says when you interview them. Put another way you don’t own the copyright on the specific shape of a tree as a sculpture because you selected its species when you planted it.
> Compilers don’t create a new copyright the output is covered as a derivative work. A derivative work is a separate work that, considered apart from the one it is derived from, separately has the required creative input to be a copyrightable work, and it does, in fact, have a separate copyright from the original (creating derivative works is an exclusive, but licensable, right of the copyright holder of the original…