121–130 of 203 posts
Good term.
For myself, I tend to have a similar view as the author (I publish MIT on most of my work), but it’s not really something I’m zealous about, and I’m not really into “slopforking” the work of others. I tend to prefer reinventing the wheel.
> For me personally, what is more interesting is that we might not even be able to copyright these creations at all. A court still might rule that all AI-generated code is in the public domain, because there was not enough human input in it. That’s quite possible, though probably not very likely. As I understand it, the US Supreme Court has just this week ruled exactly this. LLM output cannot be copyrighted, so the o…
> And if it can't be copyrighted that means it is in the public domain from the instant it was created and can't be licensed. I don't think this follows? If I vibe code something and never post it anywhere public, I can still license that code to a company and ask them to pay me for using the code? So as a corollary, the business model of providing software where you can choose either free (as in beer) and restrictiv…
I believe you can do that with public domain/copyright free material in general. There is no requirement to tell someone that the material you license them is also available under a different one or that your license is not enforceable.
> For me personally, what is more interesting is that we might not even be able to copyright these creations at all. A court still might rule that all AI-generated code is in the public domain, because there was not enough human input in it. That’s quite possible, though probably not very likely. As I understand it, the US Supreme Court has just this week ruled exactly this. LLM output cannot be copyrighted, so the o…
Your understanding is incorrect. The case was about whether an LLM can be an author, and did not whether the person using it can be (which will be the case). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47260110
I know it's a bit off-topic, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTYnzLbHUHA
> For me personally, what is more interesting is that we might not even be able to copyright these creations at all. A court still might rule that all AI-generated code is in the public domain, because there was not enough human input in it. That’s quite possible, though probably not very likely. As I understand it, the US Supreme Court has just this week ruled exactly this. LLM output cannot be copyrighted, so the o…
> As I understand it, the US Supreme Court has just this week ruled exactly this. LLM output cannot be copyrighted, so the only part of any piece of software that can be copyrighted is that part that was created by a human. Your understanding is incorrect. The case was about whether an LLM can be an author, and did not whether the person using it can be (which will be the case). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4…
Similarly, the operator of the LLM is the holder of the copyright of the LLM’s output.
Maybe, just maybe, this whole AI thing could result in us collectively waking up and realizing copyright is entirely unsuitable for software.
AI is merely a sophisticated tool. If your original thoughts achieve a tangible result through this tool, the ownership should reside with the thinker. Reverse-engineering, in this context, shouldn't be seen merely as an infringement on AI-generated code, but as a violation of the human intellect and systemic design that orchestrated that code. We need to move past protecting 'lines of code' and start protecting the…
Further, what if this tool can reproduce these forbidden things almost or completely verbatim and the user of the tool has no way to verify it?